The Issue The issue in the case is whether the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document provides coverage for a maxillary subperiosteal implant surgical procedure under the circumstances described below.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been insured under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, effective July 1, 1988 (the "Plan"). Dr. Clark F. Brown, Jr. is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida. His specialty is dental implantology. The subperiosteal implant, which is the subject of this case, is a framework that rests on top of the bone underneath the tissue. Following the insertion of the framework, the tissue reattaches to the jawbone, thereby securing the framework to the bone. The implant procedure takes two days, but can be performed in Dr. Clark's office. On the first day, a direct bone impression is taken. In the process, the gum tissue is cut along the entire remaining ridge and lifted back almost to the base of the eye, floor of the nose, and palate. After the impression is taken, the incision is closed with sutures. On the next day, the stitches are removed, the implant is installed, and the incision again closed with sutures. On July 31, 1987, Petitioner visited Dr. Clark and complained of difficulties wearing his upper denture. Upon examination, Dr. Clark discovered that Petitioner lacked adequate bone to retain an upper denture. Lacking about 90% of the bone in the vicinity of the upper arch, Petitioner's upper denture was highly unstable. By letter dated August 8, 1987, Dr. Clark informed the Plan administrator of Petitioner's condition and proposed a full maxillary subperiosteal procedure for the installation of an orthopedic augmentation appliance. By letter dated December 11, 1987, the Plan administrator informed Dr. Clark that the proposed procedure was not covered under the Plan. The letter explains that dental services are a specific exclusion unless performed "as the result of an accident where a natural tooth has been damaged and the treatment is rendered within 120 days from the date of the accident." On December 17, 1987, Dr. Clark relined the denture that fit Petitioner the best. As he had warned Petitioner in advance, the procedure was unsuccessful. On June 26, 1988, Dr. Clark prepared a new upper denture in preparation for the installation of mucosal implants, which utilize the gum for support. Dr. Clark and Petitioner pursued this treatment largely because it was less expensive that the subperiosteal implant for which the Plan administrator had refused coverage. Dr. Clark later installed these implants, but they were unsuccessful due to the lack of bone. They were removed in November, 1988. At this point, the subperiosteal implant remained the only available treatment for Petitioner. On February 2, 1989, Dr. Thomas Priest, a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, examined Petitioner and found that his gums were severely receded, his alveolar ridge was absent, and his lower teeth were in poor shape. Considering the complaints of Petitioner concerning digestive disorders and weight loss, Dr. Priest determined that Petitioner would be a good candidate for, and might benefit from, the maxillary subperiosteal implant. Dr. Priest reached this conclusion based in part on the experience of other patients who had undergone similar procedures. Dr. Clark and the Plan administrator exchanged correspondence through the first half of 1989, at which time the administrator, in response to a threat of litigation, stated that "the preparation of the mouth for dentures is considered to be a dental procedure and non-covered." She then referred Dr. Clark to Respondent. The loss of bone was probably caused by Petitioner wearing loose upper dentures for an extended period of time. However, severe periodontal disease, which cannot be ruled out as a possible cause, could also result in the loss of bone. Another potential cause of the loss of bone is trauma from accidental injuries, such as those typically suffered in an automobile accident. However, this potential cause can be ruled out in Petitioner's case. No accident has necessitated the subject implant procedure, nor has any accident preceded the proposed procedure by 120 days. The Plan contains three coverage sections. Section II describes "Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services." Section III describes "Covered Medical--Surgical Benefits." Section IV describes "Other Covered Services." Section II deals with hospitals primarily and is not applicable to the present case. Subsections III.A. and D. provide coverage for "medically necessary inpatient/outpatient services provided to an insured by a . . . physician for the treatment of the insured as a result of a covered accident or illness." Section IV provides coverage for "medically necessary services when ordered by a physician for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness," including, at Subsection IV.D., "other medical supplies and prostheses . . . determined by the Administrator to be medically necessary for the treatment of an insured's condition." The phrase, "covered accident or illness," which is not defined in the Plan, apparently refers to accidents or illnesses that are not elsewhere excluded, such as in Section VII on Exclusions and Section VIII on Limitations. Section VII.A. excludes "services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A." However, Subsection VII.A. adds that cosmetic surgery is covered if it is: a medically necessary procedure in the correction of an abnormal bodily function; [or) for reconstruction to an area of the body which has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided such alteration occurred while the insured was covered under the Plan. Subsection VII.G excludes: Services and supplies in connection with dental work, dental treatment, or dental examinations unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.B., except that in no case shall orthodontia be covered. Subsection VIII.A. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured covered by the Plan if such surgery or treatment is the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under the Plan and actually performed while the Plan is in force . . Subsection VIII.B. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Any dental work, dental treatment or dental examinations medically necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is covered by the Plan only if such work, treatment or examination is (1) the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under this Plan and (2) rendered within . . . 120 days of the accident. . Subsection I.AX. defines a physician to include: a licensed dentist who performs specific surgical or non-dental procedures covered by the Plan, or who renders services due to injuries resulting from accidents, provided such procedures or services are within the scope of the dentist's professional license. Subsection I.AM(b). defines "medically necessary" to mean that: in the opinion of the Administrator the service received is required to identify or treat the illness or injury which a physician has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must (1) be consistent with the diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition (2) be in accordance with standards of good medical practice, and (3) be required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or his/her physician. The fact that a service is prescribed by a physician does not necessarily mean that such service is medically necessary. Subsection I.AE. defines "illness" as: physical sickness or disease, . . . bodily injury, [or] congenital anomaly . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the proposed procedure, under the facts of this case, is covered by the Plan. DONE and ORDERED this 21 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21 day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 William F. Lennan 740 Hunan St., N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32907 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Does the Prescription Drug Services Plan administered by the Division of State Group Insurance provide coverage for the drug Xenical as prescribed to the Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact The Plan The Division of State Group Insurance is authorized to provide health insurance coverage to employees of the State of Florida through a fully insured plan or a self-insured plan. The decision to offer a self-insured plan is explained in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document (the "Plan Booklet and Benefits Document"): As is the case with many major employers, the State of Florida determined that a self- insured plan would result in significant savings to the participating members, and, therefore, implemented the current self- insured program in 1978. Being self-insured means that Claims are paid directly from funds belonging to the State of Florida, with the State earning interest on all fund balances. In addition, the Plan avoids charges normally charged by insurance companies such as retentions, reinsurance, risk factors, and other insurance related charges. (Petitioner's Ex. 7, p. 2.) Denominated the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Insurance Plan, the Plan has both a Servicing Agent and a Prescription Drug Program Administrator. At the time the events leading to this case arose, the Servicing Agent was Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and the Prescription Drug Program Administrator was Eckerd Health Services ("EHS"). By designation of the Florida Legislature, however, the Division is responsible for the administration of the Plan. In the capacity of Plan Administrator, "the Division . . . has full and final decision-making authority concerning eligibility, coverage, benefits, claims, or interpretation of the Benefit Document." (Id.) Mr. Magee, Diabetes and Hypercholesteremia Dennis J. Magee is an employee of the Department of Corrections. He has been covered by State Health Insurance since he commenced his employment with the state in 1971. Mr. Magee has participated in numerous health insurance plans over the course of his employment. For the past three or four years, at least, he has participated in the State of Florida Group Health Self-Insurance Plan administered by the Division. Approximately twelve years ago, Mr. Magee was diagnosed with diabetes. Since the initial diagnosis, his diabetes mellitus type 2 has become complicated by microangiopathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, hypercholesterolemia (elevated serum cholesterol) and obesity. With regard to obesity, Mr. Magee was determined near the time of hearing to have a body mass index of 32.25, an index beyond the threshold for obesity. Dr. Croom and Xenical Mr. Magee's physician is William P. Croom, M.D. Dr. Croom is an endocrinologist specializing in the treatment of types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. On July 22, 1999, Dr. Croom prescribed Xenical, a drug used in the control of obesity, at a dosage of 150 milligrams for Mr. Magee. The prescription was medically necessary in Dr. Croom's view because Mr. Magee "has been unsuccessful in managing his obesity with diet and exercise" (Petitioner's Ex. 2) and because "his diabetes and hyperlipidemia [elevated cholesterol] are driven by his obesity . . . ." (Petitioner's Ex. 3). Attempt to Fill the Prescription Mr. Magee presented the prescription to Express Pharmacy Services. It was not honored. On August 3, 1999, Express Pharmacy Services wrote to Mr. Magee that "[t]his item is not covered by your insurance. Please contact your benefits rep. if you have questions." Petitioner's Ex. 4. Appeal to the Division Eckerd Health Services, the Prescription Drug Program Administrator, affirmed the denial of the prescription. Mr. Magee appealed the decision to the Division. The Department of Management Services has an appeals committee, which reviews all denials of coverage by EHS. The appeals committee is composed of three members within the Division: the director, the assistant director and the Policy and Development Bureau Chief. The Director, at the time Mr. Magee's appeal was considered, Mr. Slavin, is a diabetic. The appeals committee looked into Xenical as a treatment for diabetes. It obtained information through literature and internet research and from consultation with physicians at Blue Cross/Blue Shield. On the basis of the research, the committee concluded that Xenical is used only for the treatment of obesity and not for the treatment of diabetes. The appeal resulted in the letter from Director Slavin (referenced in the Preliminary Statement of this order) in which the Director wrote, "I am writing in response to your appeal of the decision by Eckerd Health Services (EHS) to deny coverage for Xenical [and] [r]egrettably, we must concur with EHS' determination." The Plan Booklet and Benefits Document Basis for the Denial The Division's concurrence with EHS that coverage for Xenical should be denied was based on the Prescription Drug Program Section of the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document. The program is described in Part XXVIII, Section W. Subsection 1., Covered Drugs, on p. 57 lists "(a) [f]ederal legend drugs" and "(b) [s]tate restricted drugs" as among those drugs covered. Among the list under Subsection 5., entitled "Exclusions," however, is "(c) [a]nti-obesity drugs." The listing of anti- obesity drugs under Part XXVIII, Section W., Subsection 5, the "Exclusions" subsection, ultimately, is the basis for the Division's denial of coverage of Xenical as prescribed for Mr. Magee. The Plan Booklet and Benefits Document is prepared on an annual basis by the Division. Typically, the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document is "enacted by the Legislature every year through the appropriation[] process of Section 8 of the Appropriations Act." (Tr. 54). For example, the Conference Report on Senate Bill 2500, General Appropriations for 1999- 2000, under Specific Appropriation states: 9) All State Group Health Insurance Plan benefits as provided in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document effective January 1, 1998, . . . shall remain in effect. Changes to the benefits provided by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document are normally initiated by submission of the Governor in his Legislative Budget Request. Benefit changes must be approved by the Legislature. The Plan Booklet and Benefit Document provides, among many, the following definitions: "Covered Services and Supplies" shall mean those health care services, treatments, therapies, devices, procedures, techniques, equipment, supplies, products, remedies, vaccines, biological products, drugs, pharmaceutical and chemical compounds which expenses are covered under the terms of the Benefit Document. The Administrator has final authority to determine if a service or supply is covered or limited by the Plan. * * * "Medical Supplies or Equipment" means supplies or equipment that must be: ordered by a Physician; of no further use when medical need ends; usable only by the Participant patient; not primarily for the Participant patient's comfort or hygiene; not for environmental control; not for exercise; manufactured specifically for medical use. (Petitioner's Ex. 7, Definitions 21 and 50, pgs. 17 and 23, respectively.) Drugs are services as defined by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Documents. But drugs that are excluded from coverage, such as anti-obesity drugs, are not "covered services" as defined by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document since by definition, an exclusion prevents them from being "covered." As a "service," moreover, Xenical is not covered by virtue of Section G. of the Benefits Document, also entitled "Exclusions." Petitioner's Ex. 7., p. 38. With regard to services "related to obesity and weight reduction," the Benefits Document states the following: G. EXCLUSIONS The following are not Covered Services and Supplies under the Plan. * * * All services and supplies related to obesity or weight reduction except: Medically Necessary intestinal or stomach by-pass surgery; or medically related services provided as part of a weight loss program when weight loss of a Participant is required by the surgeon prior to performing a Medically Necessary surgical procedure. (Petitioner's Ex. 7, pgs. 38, 41.) Xenical and Section 627.65745, Florida Statutes Subsection 627.65745(1), Florida Statutes, states: A health insurance policy or group health insurance policy sold in this state, including a health benefit plan issued pursuant to 727.6699, must provide coverage for all medically appropriate and necessary equipment, supplies and diabetes outpatient self management training and educational services used to treat diabetes, if the patient's treating physician or a physician who specializes in the treatment of diabetes certifies such services are necessary. Xenical, a drug, is obviously not "equipment." Nor would it fall under the category of "self management training and educational services used to treat diabetes." It does not fall under the category of "supplies" either. Under the coding system developed by the Health Care Financing Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the standard coding system for the payment of health claims, drugs are not supplies. Examples of supplies include prosthetics, testing supplies, artificial limbs, ventilators, needles, and insulin pumps. Update of the Basis for the Prescription In a letter dated June 13, 2000, Dr. Croom more fully explained the basis for the prescription. Xenical is medically necessary for the treatment of diabetes and is not for cosmetic purposes. Xenical is a part of Mr. Magee's outpatient management program which consists of other medications and education. Despite these medications, his most recent hemoglobin A1C is 9.1 significantly higher than the recommended target of 7.0. The use of Xenical would be instrumental in reducing this parameter. In my opinion, Xenical is medically appropriate and necessary. (Petitioner's Ex. 3). The appeals committee did not have the benefit of Dr. Croom's June 13, 2000, letter in which Dr. Croom opined that in the case of Mr. Magee, "Xenical is medically necessary for the treatment of diabetes and is not being used for cosmetic purposes." Other Purpose for the Prescription That a drug's effectiveness is primarily for the treatment of an excluded purpose may not necessarily exclude it from coverage if it were prescribed for some other purpose. This point was elicited during testimony of the Division's witness, C. Merrill Moody, the Division's Assistant Director: (Tr. 81). MR. MOODY: If [Xenical] was being prescribed for obesity, it would be excluded; if it was not, it would not. And I'll give you an example. We have a direct exclusion for contraceptives for contraceptive use . . . [b]ut contraceptives can be used for other purposes. . . . [P]articipants are required to provide us with a letter from the doctor describing what the contraceptive is being used for. We then cover that contraceptive. Mr. Moody went on to explain that oral contraceptives, because of certain properties, are used also in the management of conditions not related to prevention of contraception. For example, oral contraceptives are prescribed in the treatment of menopause because of their ability to maintain the levels of certain hormones. If prescribed for that purpose, then, despite the fact that they are oral contraceptives and normally excluded from coverage, they are covered because of the non-contraceptive basis for the prescription. The Division's position with regard to oral contraceptives is consistent with the exclusion contained in Section W.5. of the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document. There the "Exclusions List" states "(a) Oral contraceptives for contraception." Petitioner's Ex. 6, p. 59. In other words, it is not some policy of the Division that provides coverage for oral contraceptives when the prescription is for a purpose other than contraception. The coverage is provided by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document, itself. If oral contraceptives are prescribed "for contraception" then they are excluded from coverage. If prescribed for some other medical purpose, then the exclusion contained in Section W, 5(a) does not prevent coverage of oral contraceptives.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that: the Division of State Group Insurance in the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying coverage of Dennis J. Magee's prescription for Xenical; and, the Division present to the Legislature the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document amended so as to allow coverage of anti-obesity drugs for diabetics if such drugs are prescribed as medically necessary for management of the subscriber's diabetes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis J. Magee Post Office Box 636 Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 Cindy Horne, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether respondent is obligated to remit to petitioner, administrator of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self-Insurance Program, an alleged underpayment of insurance premiums in the amount of $435.81, covering the period from October, 978,through June, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order requiring respondent to remit $435.81, for total insurance premium underpayments, within 90 days, failing which respondent's insurance coverage under the State Employees Insurance Program should be cancelled and the underpayment obtained through certified payroll deductions from any salary due the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 13th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wyatt Wyatt Department of English University of Central Florida Post Office Box 25000 Orlando, Florida 32816 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues here, the Petitioner, Carol C. Bledsoe, was a part-time employee of the University of Central Florida (U.C.F.) U.C.F. is an agency of the State of Florida, whose employees are eligible for participation in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self-Insurance Plan (Plan), administered by Respondent, D.O.A. On December 1, 1980, Petitioner applied for full family coverage under the Plan, with coverage to be effective January 1, 1981. The application form executed by Petitioner was submitted to the Benefits Coordinator at the personnel office at U.C.F. At the time of submission, that portion of the form reserved for "payroll clerk use only" was left blank. The Benefits Coordinator, after checking the form to insure all required information was supplied by the applicant, Petitioner, forwarded it to the payroll department at U.C.F. It was at that office that the payroll clerk inserted an erroneous deduction code on December 2, 1980. The incorrect deduction code inserted was "0.2." the proper deduction code which should have been inserted to reflect Petitioner's status was "42." Though the current Benefits Coordinator indicates an applicant who is a part-time employee, such as Petitioner here, is given, at the time application for coverage is made, a form to show what the correct deduction for the requested coverage will be, this calculation is made by the Benefits Coordinator for the employee based on a formula which calls for a different rate for part- time employees. A part-time employee's contribution to the premium (the amount deducted) is higher than that of a full-time employee. The current coordinator, Ms. Evans, cannot state that Petitioner got the described form when she applied, and Petitioner denies having received it. There is no evidence to show Petitioner received any indication of what the deduction should or would be until the deductions from her pay began on January 9, 1981, with the deduction for the pay period December 19, 1980 - January 1, 1981. At that time, the deduction made was $14.37. The corrected deduction should have been $19.52 per pay period. Here, the deduction from Petitioner's pay was calculated on the erroneous basis that she was a full-time employee, thereby resulting in a smaller deduction that was correct. This insufficient deduction continued until the discrepancy was discovered due to an audit in March, 1983. The parties stipulate that the total shortage in issue is $345.78. During the approximately 2 1/4 years that the improper deduction was being withheld from Petitioner's pay each pay period, Petitioner was fully covered under the full family coverage plan. During this period, she filed only one claim -- a small one for an injury to her son -- and was paid the amount claimed. During this same period, she underwent several inquiries into her pay, instigated by her, to correct other inaccuracies in her pay. At no time prior to the March, 1983 audit was the incorrect health insurance deduction discovered, and Petitioner had no indication that amount being deducted for that purpose was incorrect. From an examination of her biweekly employee's earning statement, there was no way she could have known her pay was in error in this particular. Several factors contributed to the error. One of these was that personnel in the payroll department of U.C.F. were doing things wrong. Another was that Petitioner was not a typical employee, and her situation required specialized handling by personnel and payroll which was not given. None of these factors, however, was within the control of the Petitioner. Changes made in the procedures followed within the agency as a result of a reorganization in January, 1982 -- made as the result of the recognition of numerous payroll problems over several months involving numerous other employees on the insurance plan -- should prevent recurrence of Petitioner's situation. However, Petitioner was in no way responsible for the creating of her situation and acted in good faith throughout the entire period. When she was notified of the error, she immediately took the appropriate steps to correct it and now pays the appropriate premium for the desired coverage. When an error is discovered, as happened here, the employee is notified that he or she has overpaid and the employee is reimbursed. On the other hand, if the employee has underpaid, as here, the employee is notified of the liability and advised of various settlement systems. If the employee desires to pay other than in one lump sum, periodic payments can be arranged in an amount not less than 3% of the employee's salary for not more than 24 months. The insurance office, under Respondent D.O.A., contends it has no authority to waive the reimbursement of the shortage and states that if Petitioner does not make up the shortage, here coverage will be terminated. If that happens, she will not be eligible to reenroll until the shortage is reimbursed. Under the insurance plan in question here, the State is a self-insurer. Petitioner's contribution and that of her agency goes into a trust fund administered by Respondent and is used to pay benefits through Blue Cross, which processes the claims. Since in this case, Petitioner paid less than she should have as a part-time employee, the U.C.F. paid more than its appropriate contribution for her coverage.
Recommendation That Petitioner, Carol C. Bledsoe, pay the underpayment of $345.78.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Daniel O. Cobb, is entitled to payment of claims for surgery performed on Ms. Cobb, Susan Catherine Cobb, his spouse, on November 11, 1985, and whether Respondent, the State, is estopped from denying coverage. A prehearing stipulation was filed limiting the facts, issues, exhibits and witnesses. The stipulated facts were incorporated into the Recommended Order and are in the Final Order as well. Petitioner presented the testimony of himself and his spouse. Petitioner's exhibits 2 through 6 were accepted into evidence. Exhibits 3 and 4 constituted hearsay. The Department presented the testimony of Hazel Rosser and Joseph F. Wellman. Four exhibits by the Department were offered into evidence and were accepted. Neither party ordered a transcript. Only the Department filed a proposed recommended order and findings of fact. The Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted, except in Findings of Fact Nos. 16, 17, and 18, Mrs. Scott is changed to Mrs. Cobb and in Findings of Fact No. 18, Mr. Scott is changed to Mr. Cobb.
Findings Of Fact Daniel O. Cobb was an employee of the Florida Department of Transportation during 1985. Mr. Cobb and his spouse, Susan Cobb, had family coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"), until November 1, 1985. The State Plan is administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Pursuant to the agreement between the State of Florida and Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits which are payable under the State Plan are governed by a "Benefit Document." Each year, State employees are given an opportunity change the form of health insurance coverage they wish to have. During this "open enrollment period" an employee covered by the State Plan can elect to participate in a Health Maintenance Organization and an employee covered by a Health Maintenance Organization can elect to participate in the State Plan. During 1985, there was an open enrollment period between September 9, 1985, and September 20, 1985. During the 1985 open enrollment period State employees, including Mr. Cobb, were provided a Notice to Employees in which they were advised to carefully review information contained in a Benefit Comparison Brochure, a Rate Comparison Chart and a Health Care Plan Selection Form. These documents were provided to all State employees. The Selection Form instructed employees to "Please read the employee notice about HMO service areas and effective date of coverage before completing this section." State employees were also advised that any change in coverage would be effective November 1, 1985. On September 19, 1985, Mr. Cobb signed a State of Florida Employes Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Change of Information Form. Pursuant to this Change of Information Form, Mr. Cobb elected to terminate his health insurance coverage with the State Plan. On the Change of Information Form it was indicated that Mr. Cobb's election to terminate his coverage under the State Plan was to be effective November 1, 1985. Therefore, Mr. Cobb was informed and should have known that he was no longer eligible for medical cost payment for himself or his family pursuant to the State Plan after October 31, 1985. Mr. Cobb also signed a Member Enrollment (Group) and Physician Selection Form on September 19, 1985. Pursuant to this Form, Mr. Cobb enrolled himself, his Spouse and their children, in Health Options, Inc., a health maintenance organization. Mr. Cobb's participation in Health Options, Inc., began November 1, 1985. On September 19, 1985, Mr. Cobb was provided a list of Health Options, Inc., approved physicians which were available for use by Mr. Cobb and his family. Mr. Cobb designated Gerald A. Giurato, M.D., as his primary care physician on the Physician Enrollment Form which he signed on September 19, 1985. On October 28, 1985, Mr. Cobb was mailed a copy of the Health Options Member Handbook which, among other things, describes the grievance procedure to be followed when medical expenses were not paid by Health Options Inc., and the manner in which physicians were to be used in order to be entitled to payment, of their charges. The Handbook informed Mr. Cobb that all care had to be arranged through a primary care physician and that only services provided or approved by the primary care physician were covered. The Handbook also indicated that treatment by physicians who were not approved by the primary care physician would be the responsibility of the patient. During 1985 Mrs. Cobb was under the care of Alexander Rosin, M.D. Dr. Rosin performed surgery for the removal of a cyst on Mrs. Cobb, on November 11, 1985. Dr. Rosin was not a physician approved by Health Options, Inc., or Mr. Cobb's primary care physician. Nor was the surgery approved. Claims attributable to the November 11, 1985, surgery were submitted to the State Plan. Claims, for the charges of Dr. Rosin, Scott Blonder, M.D., and a Pathologist were submitted. The expenses for the November 11, 1985, surgery were incurred after coverage of Mr. and Mrs. Cobb under the State Plan ended. The type of surgery performed on Mrs. Cobb was also not authorized by the Benefit Document. No claims were submitted to Health Options, Inc., for medical expenses incurred for Mrs. Cobb's operation on November 11, 1985. None of the medical expense attributable to Mrs. Cobb's November 11, 1985, surgery were incurred with physicians or facilities approved by Health Options, Inc. By letter dated August 27, 1986, the Department denied the claims submitted to the State Plan attributable to Mrs. Cobb's November 11, 1985, surgery. Mr. Cobb filed a request for an administrative hearing to contest the Department's proposed denial.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMEDED that a final order be issued by the Department denying payment of claimed expenses attributable to Mrs. Cobb's surgery of November 11, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 864109 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number, of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 18. The letter denying payment was dated August 27, 1986, and not September 4, 1986. See DOA exhibit 1. 2 7. 3 Hereby accepted. 4 7. 5 3. 6 4 and 5. 7-9 6. 10-12 11. Summary of testimony and irrelevant. Summary of testimony argument. Concerning the weight to be given evidence and cumulative. 15 7. 16 Hearsay. 17-18 Conclusion of law. 19-20 16. 21 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 22 15. COPIES FURNISHED: O. C. Beakes, Esquire Lindner Smith, Jr., Esquire 836 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Andrea R. Bateman, Esquire Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery is a covered service for which he is entitled payment/reimbursement under the State of Florida's Self-Insured Group Health Insurance Program.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Petitioner was a state employee covered under the State of Florida Self- Insured Group Insurance Plan. The provisions of the "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" applies to the issues herein. The State of Florida's third party administrator, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida denied prior authorization for Petitioner's LASIK surgery. The Division of State Group Insurance, which administers the State Plan, upheld Blue Cross and Blue Shield's denial of prior authorization by proposed agency action letter dated July 11, 2000. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. Petitioner proceeded with LASIK surgery without prior authorization. Petitioner here requests that charges for his LASIK surgery be reimbursed by the State Plan. LASIK surgery is a treatment in which part of the cornea of each eye is removed and reshaped to correct myopia (nearsightedness) or hyperopia (farsightedness). Prior to his LASIK surgery, Petitioner suffered from myopia, a refractive disorder of the eyes. Petitioner's myopia was not the result of an accident or cataract surgery. The evidence is unrefuted and substantial that Petitioner experienced difficulty in his job because of his vision. He had difficulty reading multiple computer screens and documents. His difficulty was acute when shifting his gaze back and forth from one computer screen to another or back and forth from a document to a computer screen. Petitioner's employment performance suffered as a result of his vision problems, and he got headaches. Petitioner attributed his difficulty to the inadequacy of his vision, as corrected by glasses. He tried both bifocals and "sophisticated bifocals," but he felt he lost considerable peripheral vision with any glasses. Petitioner consulted with two optometrists, Dr. Douglas Jones and Dr. Thomas Barnard. Prior to the LASIK surgery, Dr. Jones and Dr. Barnard agreed that Petitioner's vision was functionally correct to 20/20, with glasses. However, both suggested that LASIK surgery would be beneficial for Petitioner. Only this information was provided with Petitioner's authorization request to Blue Cross and Blue Shield for prior authorization. Petitioner is 50 years old and had the LASIK surgery approximately two months prior to the formal hearing. Petitioner's ability to function in his job improved after the LASIK surgery. By his testimony at formal hearing, Dr. Barnard testified that one of Petitioner's eyes was not correctable with glasses exactly to 20/20 but was, in fact, "20/20-", which meant that Petitioner may have been able to read most of the letters on the 20/20 line but may have missed one or two of them. Nonetheless, Dr. Barnard agreed that this status or diagnosis is considered functional. Dr. Barnard also testified that any person with myopia is going to have some loss of peripheral vision with the use of glasses, depending on the prescription. Further, he testified that as we age the difficulty in getting a good correction at different distances is just something that people have to put up with after the age of forty. Dr. Barnard has a preference for LASIK surgery over glasses. According to Dr. William Cobb, ophthalmologist, most people with myopia benefit from LASIK surgery when it is successful. The designation of "20/20" vision means that the judgment of acuity of vision is made at a distance of 20 feet. In ophthalmology, all visions are measured by 20/20, which gives a basis for comparison. Glasses can be made to allow for acuity of vision at any stated distance for any specific function. Most people using a computer must have trifocals or special lenses to use with the computer. If trifocal lenses are not adequate, then progressive lenses can be used for multiple focusing distances. In Dr. Cobb's opinion, Petitioner should have been able to obtain glasses to solve his visual problems at specific distances. LASIK surgery corrects vision in the same functional way as glasses, in that it is performed to focus the eyes at one specified distance. The pertinent provision of the "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" provides: The following services and supplies are excluded from coverage under this health insurance plan unless a specific exception is noted. Exceptions may be subject to certain coverage limitations. * * * 11. Services and supplies for treating or diagnosing refractive disorders (vision errors which can be corrected with glasses) including eye glasses, contact lenses, or the examination for the prescribing or fitting of eye glasses or contact lenses, unless required because of an accident or cataract surgery that occurred while covered by this health insurance plan. This health insurance plan will cover the first pair of eye glasses or contact lenses following an accident to the eye or cataract surgery. The Division of State Group Insurance has uniformly interpreted this provision to exclude any payment for contact lenses, glasses, or LASIK surgery. The only exception to the exclusion is the stated provision for glasses or contact lenses following cataract surgery or following an accident that affected vision. State employees may purchase supplemental insurance that covers vision care and provides reimbursement for LASIK surgery.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, issue a final order determining that Petitioner is not entitled to payment for LASIK surgery and dismissing his petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 11th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Gesser Apartment D-23 4100 Southwest 20th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32607 Julie P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact THE PETITIONER: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant, hearsay, argument or not supported by the record. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted. With the exception of the last two sentences, paragraph 7 is accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 7 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Dr. Rivera did acknowledge Ritodrine to be a tocolytic drug, the use of which should be monitored. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 and, with the exception of the last two sentences, paragraph 11 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 11 are rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. Paragraphs 6 through 11 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted but are not controlling as the weight of the evidence in this case would suggest that the device is only investigational as it relates to diagnosis of pre-term labor, not as used in this case. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 16 through 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 20 through 29 are accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 31 through 34 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the facts and weight of the evidence of this case, or inconclusive based upon all facts and circumstances of this case. Paragraphs 35 through 37 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin J. Sperry SPERRY & SHAPIRO, P.A. Suite 300 805 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Augustus Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Carl Ogden Division Director Division of State Employee's Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Road Building B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4811
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for insurance benefits for the AHUM as utilized under the facts of this case. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1990.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
