The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners’ Interim Rate Request (IRR) for an increase should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency of state government responsible for the implementation and administration of the Medicaid Program in the State of Florida. AHCA is authorized to audit Medicaid Cost Reports submitted by Medicaid Providers participating in the Medicaid Program. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud are licensed nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid Program as institutional Medicaid Providers. On May 23, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville entered into a settlement agreement with the representative of the estate of one of its former residents, D. P. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at Jacksonville would pay $350,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at Jacksonville paid the personal representative the sum of $350,000.00. By letter dated July 16, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville requested an IRR effective August 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.2., for additional costs incurred from self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at Jacksonville submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the costs exceeded $5,000.00 and that the increase in cost was projected at $2.77/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at Jacksonville was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,627.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated July 18, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of Section IV J. of the Plan, necessary and proper for granting the request. Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Subsequently, Avante at Jacksonville became concerned that, perhaps, the incorrect provision of the Plan had been cited in its IRR. As a result, a second IRR was submitted for the same costs. By letter dated October 22, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville made a second request for an IRR, this time pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.3., for the same additional costs incurred from the self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 settlement. The same supporting documentation was included. Avante at Jacksonville was of the opinion that the Plan Section IV J.3. specifically dealt with the costs of general and professional liability insurance. By letter dated October 30, 2007, AHCA denied the second request for an IRR, indicating that the first request was denied based on “all sub-sections of Section IV J of the Plan”; that the second request failed to satisfy the requirements of the Plan Section IV J.3. and all sections and sub-sections of the Plan “necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. On October 19, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud entered a settlement agreement with the personal representative of the estate of one of its former residents, G. M. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at St. Cloud would pay $90,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at St. Cloud paid the personal representative the sum of $90,000.00. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud requested an IRR effective November 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J, for additional costs incurred as a result of paying the $90,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at St. Cloud submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the increase in cost was projected at $2.02/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at St. Cloud was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,000.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated December 12, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of “Section IV J of the Plan necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at St. Cloud contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Insurance Policies and the Nursing Home Industry in Florida Typically, nursing homes in Florida carry low limit general and professional liability insurance policies. The premiums of the policies exceed the policy limits. For example, the premium for a policy of Avante at Jacksonville to cover the $350,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $425,000.00 and for a policy of Avante at St. Cloud to cover the $90,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $200,000.00. Also, the policies have a funded reserve feature wherein, if the reserve is depleted through the payment of a claim, the nursing home is required to recapitalize the reserve or purchase a new policy. That is, if a policy paid a settlement up to the policy limits, the nursing home would have to recapitalize the policy for the amount of the claim paid under the policy and would have to fund the loss, which is the amount in excess of the policy limits, out-of-pocket. Florida’s Medicaid Reimbursement Plan for Nursing Homes The applicable version of the Plan is Version XXXI. AHCA has incorporated the Plan in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. AHCA uses the Plan in conjunction with the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB.15-1)3 to calculate reimbursement rates of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The calculation of reimbursement rates uses a cost- based, prospective methodology, using the prior year’s costs to establish the current period per diem rates. Inflation factors, target ceilings, and limitations are applied to reach a per patient, per day per diem rate that is specific to each nursing home. Reimbursement rates for nursing homes and long-term care facilities are typically set semi-annually, effective on January 1 and July 1 of each year. The most recent Medicaid cost report is used to calculate a facility’s reimbursement rate and consists of various components, including operating costs, the direct patient care costs, the indirect patient care costs, and property costs. The Plan allows for the immediate inclusion of costs in the per diem rate to Medicaid Providers under very limited circumstances through the IRR process. The interim rate’s purpose is to compensate for the shortfalls of a prospective reimbursement system and to allow a Medicaid Provider to increase its rate for sudden, unforeseen, dramatic costs beyond the Provider’s control that are of an on-going nature. Importantly, the interim rate change adjusts the Medicaid Provider’s individual target rate ceiling to allow those costs to flow ultimately through to the per diem paid, which increases the amount of the Provider’s overall reimbursement. In order for a cost to qualify under an interim rate request, the cost must be an allowable cost and meet the criteria of Section IV J of the Plan. The Plan provides in pertinent part: IV. Standards * * * J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem rate. If new State or Federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure and certification requirements, or new interpretations of existing laws, rules, regulations, or licensure and certification requirements require providers to make changes that result in increased or decreased patient care, operating, or capital costs, requests for component interim rates shall be considered for each provider based on the budget submitted by the provider. All providers’ budgets submitted shall be reviewed by the Agency [AHCA] and shall be the basis for establishing reasonable cost parameters. In cases where new State or Federal requirements are imposed that affect all providers, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the class ceilings to account for changes in costs caused by the new requirements effective as of the date of the new requirements or implementation of the new requirements, whichever is later. Interim rate adjustments shall be granted to reflect increases in the cost of general or professional liability insurance for nursing homes if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem. CMS-PUB.15-1 provides in pertinent part: 2160. Losses Arising From Other Than Sale of Assets A. General.—A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider’s financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self- insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. Where a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider as a result of such losses may not be included in allowable costs. * * * 2160.2 Liability Losses.—Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Insurance against a provider’s liability for such payments to others would include, for example, automobile liability insurance; professional liability (malpractice, negligence, etc.); owners, landlord and tenants liability; and workers’ compensation. Any settlement negotiated by the provider or award resulting from a court or jury decision of damages paid by the provider in excess of the limits of the provider’s policy, as well as the reasonable cost of any legal assistance connected with the settlement or award are includable in allowable costs, provided the provider submits evidence to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage carried by the provider at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. Also, the reasonable cost of insurance protection, as well as any losses incurred because of the application of the customary deductible feature of the policy, are includable in allowable costs. As to whether a cost is allowable, the authority to which AHCA would look is first to the Plan, then to CMS-PUB.15- 1, and then to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As to reimbursement issues, AHCA would look to the same sources in the same order for the answer. The insurance liability limit levels maintained by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud reflect sound and prudent management practices. Claims that resulted in the settlements of Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud, i.e., wrongful death and/or negligence, are the type of claims covered under the general and professional liability policies carried by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both had a general and professional liability insurance policy in full force and effect at the time the wrongful death and/or negligence claims were made that resulted in the settlement agreements. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud filed a claim with their insurance carrier, even though they could have, for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both chose not to file a claim with their respective insurance carrier for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. AHCA did not look beyond the Plan in making its determination that neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud should be granted an IRR. Wesley Hagler, AHCA’s Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, testified as an expert in Medicaid cost reimbursement. He testified that settlement agreements are a one time cost and are not considered on-going operating costs for purposes of Section IV J.2. of the Plan. Mr. Hagler’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Hagler testified that settlement agreements and defense costs are not considered general and professional liability insurance for purposes of Section IV J.3. of the Plan. To the contrary, Stanley William Swindling, Jr., an expert in health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, testified that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs. Mr. Swindling’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Hagler’s testimony, and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs.4 Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted any documentation with their IRRs to indicate a specific law, statute, or rule, either state or federal, with which they were required to comply, resulted in an increase in costs. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud experienced an increase in the premiums for the general and professional liability insurance policies. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted documentation with its IRRs to indicate that the premiums of its general and professional liability insurance increased. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud could only meet the $5,000.00 threshold and the one percent increase in total per diem under the Plan, Sections IV J.2. or J.3. by basing its calculations on the settlement costs. Looking to the Plan in conjunction with CMS-PUB.15-1 to determine reimbursement costs, CMS-PUB.15-1 at Section 2160A provides generally that, when a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider, as a result of such losses, are not allowable costs; however, Section 2160.2 specifically includes settlement dollars in excess of the limits of the policy as allowable costs, provided the evidence submitted by the provider to the intermediary (AHCA) shows to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. The policy coverage for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud set the policy limits for each facility at $10,000.00 for each occurrence. Applying the specific section addressing settlement negotiations, the loss covered by insurance would have been $10,000.00 for each facility and the losses in excess of the policy limits--$340,000.00 for Avante at Jacksonville and $80,000.00 for Avante at St. Cloud—would have been allowable costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the interim rate requests for an increase for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 18th day of September, 2008. 1/ The corrected case-style.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 15, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agents in Florida and with regulating their conduct. Section 624.307 and Chapter 626, Part I, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Ingrid Machado was Florida-licensed insurance agent. In March 1999, Teresita Baldor was interested in purchasing health insurance. Ms. Baldor had previously owned a private school and had been insured through the school's group health insurance policy. After she sold the school and began teaching mathematics at Miami-Dade Community College and Saint Thomas University, she no longer had health insurance coverage. On or about March 10, 1999, Ms. Machado met with Ms. Baldor at Ms. Baldor's home. Ms. Baldor knew Ms. Machado only as an insurance agent and did not know whether Ms. Machado was affiliated with an insurance agency. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor during the March 10, 1999, visit that she would try to place Ms. Baldor in a group for health insurance purposes but that she did not know at that time the group Ms. Baldor would be placed in or the name of the insurance company that would provide the health insurance coverage. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor during the visit that she would let Ms. Baldor know the name of the company providing her coverage and that she would send Ms. Baldor the coverage information. During her March 10, 1999, visit to Ms. Baldor's home, Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor for general identification information, such as her name and social security number, and for other information, such as her weight. Ms. Baldor did not sign any document during this visit and cannot recall if Ms. Machado completed any form during their conversation. Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor to make out two checks, one in the amount of $175.00 and one in the amount of $100.00, but Ms. Baldor does not remember Ms. Machado's telling her the reason she needed two separate checks. Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor to leave the line for the name of the payee blank, again telling Ms. Baldor that she did not yet know which insurance company would ultimately provide health insurance coverage to Ms. Baldor. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that the name of the company would be filled in on the checks at a later time. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that she would have health insurance coverage effective March 15, 1999. On or about March 20, 1999, Ms. Baldor telephoned Ms. Machado because Ms. Baldor had not received any information regarding health insurance coverage. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that she was having complications with her pregnancy and could no longer handle Ms. Baldor's insurance matters. Ms. Machado gave Ms. Baldor the telephone number of the "Durey Agency," told her that this agency would work with her to obtain health insurance coverage, and gave her Ray Gonzalez's name. Ms. Machado had no further contact with Ms. Baldor after the telephone conversation on or about March 20, 1999, during the times material to this proceeding. At some point, Ms. Baldor called the telephone number Ms. Machado had given her to find out why she had not received any information regarding her health insurance coverage. Ms. Baldor told the person who answered the phone, a woman named Maria, that she wanted her checks back if she could not give her any information "right then." Later the same day, Maria called Ms. Baldor and told her that she had been placed in a group for health insurance purposes. A Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form was submitted to the Neighborhood Health Partnership on behalf of Ms. Baldor. On the form, Ms. Baldor was identified as an employee of "International Marketing." A signature appeared on the bottom of the form purporting to be that of Ms. Baldor, and the date next to the signature was "5/10/99." Ms. Baldor never saw the Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form. A few weeks after Maria told Ms. Baldor that she had been placed in a group for health insurance purposes, Ms. Baldor received a package from the Neighborhood Health Partnership that contained an identification card indicating that she was enrolled in the "International Marketing Group" and indicating that her insurance coverage with the Neighborhood Health Partnership was effective as of June 15, 1999. During Ms. Baldor's conversations with Ms. Machado, Ms. Machado never mentioned the Neighborhood Health Partnership or International Marketing Group. The checks Ms. Baldor provided to Ms. Machado were made payable to the Durey Insurance Group and were processed by the bank on or about May 17, 1999. In addition, Ms. Baldor wrote checks to the Durey Insurance Group dated July 10, 1999, and August 9, 1999, as payment for her health insurance premiums. Ms. Baldor's insurance coverage with the Neighborhood Health Partnership was eventually cancelled. It was Ms. Baldor's understanding that it was cancelled because the Durey Insurance Group did not remit her premium to the Neighborhood Health Partnership and because the "International Marketing Group" in which she was placed by the Durey Insurance Group did not exist. Summary The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado's actions with respect to her dealings with Ms. Baldor demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness or demonstrated that Ms. Machado lacked reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transaction of insurance. The Department presented no evidence to establish any standards of skill, ability, knowledge, or competence by which Ms. Machado's acts or omissions can be judged to determine if she committed any of the violations with which Ms. Machado is charged. It is not possible to determine from the evidence presented if Ms. Machado's actions deviated from a standard of fitness or trustworthiness which a reasonably prudent insurance agent would be expected to exhibit under the circumstances or if Ms. Machado's conduct fell below a standard establishing the degree of knowledge and technical competence which a reasonably prudent insurance agent would be expected to exhibit under the circumstances. 2/ The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado engaged in any unfair method of competition or deceptive practices or knowingly made any misrepresentations to Ms. Baldor regarding health insurance coverage. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Ms. Machado took some minimal information from Ms. Baldor and told her she would place her in a group for health insurance coverage. The uncontroverted evidence further establishes that Ms. Machado did not represent to Ms. Baldor that she would place Ms. Baldor in any specific group, that she would place Ms. Baldor with any particular insurance company, 3/ or that Ms. Baldor would be provided with any specific coverage or benefits. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado knowingly collected from Ms. Baldor any sums in excess of premium because, at the time Ms. Machado collected the two checks from Ms. Baldor, Ms. Machado did not know which insurance company would write health insurance coverage for Ms. Baldor and, therefore, did not know what the premium would be. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado knowingly collected from Ms. Baldor any premium for insurance that was not, in due course, provided. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Ms. Machado initially agreed to procure health insurance coverage for Ms. Baldor; however, because of her pregnancy, Ms. Machado referred Ms. Baldor to the Durey Insurance Group approximately ten days after Ms. Machado's only meeting with Ms. Baldor and advised Ms. Baldor that the Durey Insurance Group would assist Ms. Baldor in obtaining health insurance. There is no persuasive evidence establishing that Ms. Machado knew or should have known that Durey Insurance Group would not, in due course, provide legitimate health insurance coverage to Ms. Baldor. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Machado had any involvement, directly or indirectly, in the transaction in which the Durey Insurance Group identified Ms. Baldor as an employee of "International Marketing" and obtained health insurance for Ms. Baldor with the Neighborhood Health Partnership as a member of the "International Marketing Group." 4/ Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado's actions made her a source of injury to Ms. Baldor or anyone else. As noted above, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that, soon after Ms. Machado's visit with Ms. Baldor on March 10, 1999, Ms. Machado advised Ms. Baldor that she could not act as Ms. Baldor's agent in placing her with a health insurance company, that she had sent Ms. Baldor's information and checks to the Durey Insurance Group, and that Ms. Baldor should contact the Durey Insurance Group for further assistance. Ms. Baldor's contacts subsequent to the latter part of March 1999 with respect to her health insurance coverage were exclusively with personnel who purported to be affiliated with the Durey Insurance Group. A representative of the Durey Insurance Group notified Ms. Baldor that her health insurance would be provided by the Neighborhood Health Partnership, and Ms. Baldor's premium checks were made payable to the Durey Insurance Group. Finally, the Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form identifying Ms. Baldor as an employee of International Marketing is dated approximately two months after Ms. Machado's last contact with Ms. Baldor, and the Department failed to present any evidence tending to establish that Ms. Machado had any involvement in the preparation of this form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Ingrid Machado. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 15th day of November, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint of August 23, 1991, Respondent, Betty Claire Fiquette, was licensed in the State of Florida as a life and health (debit) insurance agent, as a life and health insurance agent, and as a general lines - limited to industrial fire insurance agent. (Pet. No. 1) At all times relative to the dates and occurrences set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Independent") as a life insurance agent. (Pet. No. 1, T. 201). FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT I OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT On or about August 28, 1989, Respondent solicited and procured from Kelly Carroll of Tallahassee, an application for emergency hospitalization insurance for her son, Sean Carroll. (Pet. No. 3). This was the only hospitalization insurance which Ms. Carroll could afford at that time for her son; however, she advised the Respondent that she wanted insurance to cover doctor's visits. Independent issued an emergency hospitalization insurance policy, number 1816130A, to Kelly Carroll. (Pet. No. 3) On or about March 19, 1990, the Respondent called Ms. Carroll and told her that the company had a rider which would cover doctor's visits and prescription medications. (T 78,81,94). The Respondent procured from Kelly Carroll an application for an outpatient surgery rider for Independent policy number 1816130A. (T. 78, 81, 94). Said rider was issued by Independent. (Pet. No. 3). Said policy rider provided for payment by Independent for expenses for two doctor visits and outpatient surgery for Sean Carroll. It did not cover prescriptions. (Pet. No. 3, T. 205) Ms. Carroll subsequently had to take her son to the doctor. She had to pay for prescriptions and for doctor's visits in excess of the two covered visits. See T 78 et seq. Ms. Carroll did not testify that the Respondent represented to her that the policy would pay for all doctor's visits. The Respondent did not tell Ms. Carroll how many doctor's visits were covered. The Respondent did tell Ms. Carroll that the policy rider would pay for prescriptions. However, it is clear from Ms. Carroll's testimony that coverage for the prescriptions was not material to her decision to take out the coverage. No evidence was offered that Respondent intentionally misstated the prescription coverage to Ms. Carroll. FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT II OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT On or about January 30, 1989, Respondent sold a health insurance policy to Melissa Schilb of Tallahassee. (Pet. No. 3). The policy sold by Respondent to Mrs. Schilb was a fixed-rate indemnity health insurance policy with preset payment amounts for each type of covered medical procedure. (Pet. No. 4). Mrs. Schilb was interested in purchasing health insurance at the time of said solicitation because she and her husband wished to have a baby. (T. 97). The Respondent went over the details of the policy coverage with the Schilbs. (T-101-102,104). Mr. Schilb could not afford the more expensive policy sold by his employer (T-103 and 105). Having explained the coverages amounts, the Respondent represented that the coverages would be sufficient to cover most of Mrs. Schilb's childbirth related medical expenses, and that the Schilb's would only have to pay a few hundred dollars. (T. 98, 100, 106, 109). The Schilbs' health insurance policy paid $800 to the hospital and $600-800 to the doctor for prenatal care. The Schilbs had approximately $3,000 in hospital expenses arising from the delivery of Mrs. Schilb's child and $2,000 in doctor's bills during the course of her pregnancy. (T. 102, 110). FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT III OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT In 1988, Independent Life issued two graded life insurance policies to Leola Greene. Ms. Greene examined these two policies at the hearing, and identified her signature on the one issued 9/6/88. She denied the signature on the policy application dated 6/8/88 was her signature. On 5/22/89 Ms. Greene signed an application for a graded life insurance policy in the amount of $3,000.00. Ms. Greene identified her signature on this policy. On 6/18/90 Ms. Greene signed an application for a graded life insurance policy in the amount of $3,000.00. Ms. Greene identified her signature on this policy. Leola Greene's contradictory testimony was that she never had taken out a $3,000 graded life policy, although she identified her signature on two such policies. (T 121-123). ^ Ms. Greene admitted that the Respondent went over the policies with her every time Ms. Greene bought a policy, and the Respondent's descriptions of the policies was accurate. (T 126, 127). Ms. Greene let her policies lapse numerous times. (T 167, 217). Ms. Greene was afforded the opportunity by Independent Life to purchase $5,000 of insurance, but was unable to afford the premiums. Ms. Greene's $5,000 life insurance policies lapsed, and she purchased the $3,000 graded life policies. The allegations regarding the Respondent and Ms. Greene are not proven. FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT IV OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Jackie L. Robinson had been buying various Independent insurance products from the Respondent since the 1980's. (T 129). He testified that he thought his two children were covered under health insurance which he had purchased. Mr. Robinson's testimony is vague as to the time of the purchase and the period the children were covered. Mr. Robinson was unable to identify the policies presented to him at the hearing. The Respondent admitted she had sold Mr. Robinson a health insurance policy, and a policy which covered the health of his children. However, Robinson let the policies on the children lapse. (T 131,221,222). Although the policies were introduced and their dates can be determined, Mr. Robinson's testimony was not specific about the time during which the children's medical bills were not covered. According to Mr. Brewster, Mr. Robinson did not make a claim against the policy on the children while it was in effect. The allegations regarding Respondent and Mr. Robinson are not proven.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts, and in view of the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the charges against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 May, 1992. Petitioner's Facts ANNEX A CASE NO. 91-6053 Paragraphs 1 through 6 adopted. Paragraph 7 rejected "all of," adopted remainder. Paragraphs 8 and 9 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10 adopted. Paragraph 11 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 12 through 16 adopted. Paragraph 17 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 18 through 22 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraph 23 adopted. Paragraph 24 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraph 25 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26 through 28 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraphs 29 through 31 adopted and restated. Paragraphs 32 and 33 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 34 and 35 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraphs 36 through 39 rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 adopted. Paragraph 4 rejected as argument. Paragraphs 5 and 6 adopted. Paragraph 7 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 8 through 14 adopted. Paragraph 15 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16 and 17 adopted. Paragraph 18 rejected argument. Paragraph 19 rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 20 rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 21 rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Samuel Lewis, Esquire 1017-A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent. The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida. The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency. After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts. The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal. In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before. With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately $150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500 to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900. At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage. As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all. Judy Nelson (Count V). Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated. Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage. Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her. On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990. Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security. Fred J. Miller (Count VI). On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage. A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt. It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account. Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card. On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed. Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990. Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy. Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV). Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.) On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security. Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III). Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security. In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly. On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing. One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle. At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/ Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs. John Stuiso (Count I). On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250. It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied. In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing. In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate. When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund. The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250. Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check. The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa. After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.). Wanda Mae Riley (Count II). In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business. Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did. Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing. In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 May, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Steven Lieberman, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on January 26, 2004, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat. (2004).1 Respondent, Charles Steven Lieberman, is currently, and was at all times pertinent to this matter, licensed in Florida as a resident Life & Variable Annuity (2-14); Life, Health & Variable Annuity (2-15); Life (2-16); Life & Health (2-18); and Health (2-40) Agent. (Stipulated Facts). The Department has jurisdiction over Mr. Lieberman's licenses and appointments pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Facts) Mr. Lieberman's license identification number is A155409. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman graduated from Columbia University. From 1974 through 1992, Mr. Lieberman worked as a trader initially on the floor of the Chicago Board of Options Exchange, and later, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Mr. Lieberman has held his insurance licenses for ten years. This is the first administrative complaint issued against him. Mr. Lieberman's Business. Mr. Lieberman, at all times pertinent, served as president of Charles Lieberman, Inc. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman, at all times pertinent, was the designated primary agent, as defined in Section 626.592, Florida Statutes, of Charles Lieberman, Inc. (Stipulated Facts). Charles Lieberman, Inc., at all times pertinent, owned and did business as "National Medical Services" and "The Insurance Center." (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman's "Medical Benefits Plan"/"Medical Savings Plan." Mr. Lieberman offers customers who are seeking medical insurance a plan which he calls a "Medical Benefits Plan" or "Medical Savings Plan" (hereinafter referred to as the "Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan"). The Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan consists of the following components (hereinafter referred collectively as the "Plan Products"): A hospital and surgery expense payment policy (hereinafter referred to as the "Hospital Insurance Plan"); A Catastrophe Major Medical Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Major Medical Insurance Plan"); and A discount card titled "The Chamber Card" (hereinafter referred to as the "Chamber Card"), with a "Limited Product Warranty." None of the Plan Products included insurance coverage for physician office visits, a fact which Mr. Lieberman was fully aware of. The Hospital Insurance Plan. The Hospital Insurance Plan provides coverage for hospital and surgical expenses. It does not provide coverage for physician office visits. The Hospital Insurance Plan is a medical insurance plan offered by United American Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "United American"). Mr. Lieberman is an agent for United American. Petitioner's Exhibit 64 is a copy of the hospital and surgery expense policy that constitutes the Hospital Insurance Plan sold by Mr. Lieberman. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner's Exhibit 65 is a copy of the Schedule of Benefits for the Hospital Insurance Plan. (Stipulated Facts). The Major Medical Insurance Plan. The Major Medical Insurance Plan provides coverage for major medical expenses in excess of $25,000.00. It does not provide coverage for physician office visits. The Major Medical Insurance Plan is also a medical insurance plan. It is offered by United States Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. Life"). In order to purchase a Major Medical Insurance Plan, customers are required to join one of many organizations which purchase Major Medical Insurance Plans through Seabury & Smith2, an organization which administers the sale of health insurance for U.S. Life. Customers, once they join such an organization, are then required to purchase the Major Medical Insurance Plan through the organization they joined. Mr. Lieberman is not an agent for U.S. Life or affiliated with Seabury & Smith. He does not, therefore, sell Major Medical Insurance Plans. Nor does he receive any compensation if any of his customers purchase a Major Medical Insurance Plan. Mr. Lieberman does, however, recommend the purchase of a Major Medical Insurance Plan as part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. In order to facilitate the purchase, Mr. Lieberman has his customers join the "American Contract Bridge League."3 His customers then purchase a Major Medical Insurance Plan directly based upon their League membership. Petitioner's Exhibit 63 is a copy of the Major Medical Insurance Plan which by Mr. Lieberman recommended that his customers purchase. (Stipulated Facts). The Chamber Card. In an effort to provide some relief for cost of physician office visits, which was not covered by the Hospital Insurance Plan or the Major Medical Insurance Plan, Mr. Lieberman sold his customers the Chamber Card. The Chamber Card, which is not insurance (Stipulated Facts), is a card which entitles the holder thereof to a discount4 for various medical services, including physician office visits. In an effort to enhance the discounts from the Chamber Card available to Mr. Lieberman's customers, Mr. Lieberman also provided what he termed a "Limited Product Warranty" which he offered through Charles Lieberman, Inc., d/b/a National Medical Services. This Limited Product Warranty is also not insurance. Pursuant to Mr. Lieberman's Limited Product Warranty, Mr. Lieberman purportedly agreed to provide reimbursement of the cost of any physician office visit in excess of $15.00, an amount which he referred to as a "copay," which was not paid for by the Chamber Card. The additional discounts were dependant, however, on Mr. Lieberman's ability to negotiate a reduction in the fees incurred by his customers directly from the physician.5 In describing the Chamber Card and the Limited Product Warranty sold by Mr. Lieberman, he used the acronyms "PPO" and "PHCS," and terms like "copay" and "claims" normally associated with the insurance industry. Customer W.E. (Count I of the Administrative Complaint). Prior to September 12, 2002, W.E. spoke with Mr. Lieberman by telephone. She explained to him that she was interested in purchasing health insurance, and before she could explain what she meant in any detail, he informed her that he could provide any health insurance she wanted as long as she did not have high blood pressure, which she did not. On September 12, 2002, W.E. met with Mr. Lieberman (Stipulated Facts) at his home to discuss purchasing health-care insurance. She explained to Mr. Lieberman that she wanted a health insurance plan similar to what she had had before she recently moved to Florida and that she wanted a plan with minimum co-payments. She also indicated that she wanted a basic insurance plan until she was able to find employment where her health insurance would be provided for her. W.E. did not specifically tell Mr. Lieberman that she wanted insurance that covered physician office visits.6 Rather, she reasonably assumed that by telling Mr. Lieberman that she wanted to purchase "health insurance" that, as an insurance agent, he would understand that she wanted coverage for physician office visits. Mr. Lieberman, rather than providing the insurance coverage which he knew or should have known W.E. was seeking, coverage which included physician office visits, suggested that she purchase the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. While Mr. Lieberman attempted to give some limited explanation of his plan to W.E., based upon the manner in which he explained his plan at hearing, it is understandable that W.E. did not understand what she was purchasing, or, more specifically, that the plan, while including some health care coverage, did not include coverage for physician office visits. On September 12, 2002, Mr. Lieberman sold or arranged for the sale of the Plan Products, as more fully described in Findings of Fact 9 through 25, to W.E.: W.E. signed an application for membership in the American Contract Bridge League (Stipulated Facts); W.E. wrote a check for her membership in the American Contract Bridge League (Stipulated Facts); W.E. signed an application and wrote checks for the Chamber Card and a United American Hospital Insurance Plan (Stipulated Facts); and W.E. signed an application for a Major Medical Insurance Plan from U.S. Life and wrote a check to Seabury & Smith. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman knew or should have known that he was selling W.E. a product which she was not interested in purchasing and that he was not providing her with a significant part of the insurance coverage she was interested in purchasing, coverage of physician office visits. While Mr. Lieberman gave some limited explanation of what the Chamber Card was, he did not fully explain to W.E. that it was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; that it would not pay for physician office visits; or that it only provided some unspecified discount on the cost of physician office visits. W.E. did not understand what she was purchasing. She even believed incorrectly that she had not been provided any insurance at all by Mr. Lieberman. While this incorrect assumption was based in part upon comments she perceived were made by a Department investigator, her comments show that she was unknowledgeable about insurance and, therefore, placed her full reliance on upon Mr. Lieberman. Even though W.E. issued separate checks made payable to "A.C.B.L." (the American Contract Bridge League), Seabury & Smith (for the Major Medical Insurance Plan), United American (for the Hospital Insurance Plan), and National Medical Services (for the Chamber Card); signed an Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and an Acknowledgement & Disclosures (both of which are quoted, infra, in Finding of Fact 35); and signed a document titled "Medical Benefits Plan” which contained an acknowledgement (quoted, infra. In Finding of Fact 36), W.E., unlike Mr. Lieberman, did not understand that she was purchasing a product which she had not requested and did not want. The Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and Acknowledgement & Disclosures signed by W.E. provided the following: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER I understand that the US Life Catastrophic Insurance Policy is being purchased through the mail from Seabury & Smith (Group Insurance Plans), who are the brokers for that plan. Although I am purchasing other insurance from Charles Lieberman, I realize that Mr. Lieberman is in no way representing Seabury & Smith or US Life and that he is only making me aware that this plan is available. I acknowledge that it is my sole responsibility to review this plan and its features to determine suitability once the policy is received. Insured Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLOSURES I hereby acknowledge that I am purchasing insurance that covers approximately 75% of the first $10,000 in the hospital then covers 100% hospitalization above $25,000. Although my PHCS PPO Access/Medical Savings Card (which is not insurance) will, in most cases, reduce this potential liability; through negotiated savings, it is not guaranteed to eliminate it in it [sic] entirety. INSURED DATE The foregoing Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement & Disclosures are misleading at best, and deceiving at worst. While the Acknowledgement & Disclosures includes the language "which is not insurance," that language is included after the terms "PHCS PPO Access/Medical Savings Card," terms which are not clearly identified or explained and are, along with other terminology used in the Disclosures (i.e., "PPO" and "copay") reasonably associated with health-care insurance. More importantly, the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement & Disclosures do not explain that physician office visits are not being provided through health care insurance. Finally, W.E. was not given an opportunity by Mr. Lieberman to read the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer, the Acknowledgement & Disclosures, or any other documents shown to her by Mr. Lieberman. He simply placed most of the documents which she had to sign in front of her with only the part she was required to sign visible and told her to sign them, which she did. The following acknowledgment was also contained in a document titled "Medical Benefits Plan" which W.E. signed: By signing below, I agree that all information provided above is complete, accurate, and truthful. I recognize that because of the high cost of health insurance, National Medical Savings, plan administrator, has attempted to put together a "medical savings/benefit plan" which allows clients to purchase reasonably priced hospitalization insurance from well known a- rated insurance companies and combine it with a product which is not insurance to better suit the clients' needs. I understand that anything associated with the PPO repricing or copay rebates is part of the "medical savings plan" and is in no way to be considered as insurance, but rather as an affordable alternative to satisfy the need to reduce medical costs. Like the Acknowledgments quoted in Finding of Fact 35, this acknowledgement, which appears after a paragraph titled "Pre- Authorized Payment Plan" on the form, is misleading. It is not clear that it is referring to the Chamber Card, it contains terms normally associated with insurance coverage in spite of the disclaimer, and Mr. Lieberman gave W.E. no reasonable opportunity to read the disclaimer before having her sign it. After enrolling W.E. in the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, Mr. Lieberman mailed all the documents which W.E. had signed on September 12, 2002, to her. This was her first realistic opportunity to read the documents. After receiving the documents concerning the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, W.E. cancelled all of the Plan Products. Although there was some language in the Acknowledgement and Disclosures and the form titled "Medical Benefits Plan" signed by W.E. indicating that some part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan was not insurance, due to the ambiguity of the language of the Acknowledgement and the disclaimer, the lack of opportunity that W.E. had to read the documents, the other language normally associated with insurance used in the documents, and the lack of coherent explanation provided by Mr. Lieberman, it is found that, as to W.E., Mr. Lieberman: Did not inform her that the Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; "Portrayed" the Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan, or policy; and Sold her products, none of which provided insurance coverage for the cost of physician office visits. Customer A.H. (Count II of the Administrative Complaint). Prior to April 11, 2003, Mr. Lieberman contacted and spoke to A.H. by telephone. A.H. told Mr. Lieberman that she was interested in purchasing health insurance, including insurance covering physician office visits, with co-pay, and hospitalization expenses, with a deductible. On April 11, 2003, A.H. met with Mr. Lieberman (Stipulated Facts) at his home to discuss purchasing health-care insurance. She again explained to Mr. Lieberman that she was interested in a policy that covered physician office visits, with a co-pay, and hospitalization expenses, with a deductible. Mr. Lieberman, rather than providing insurance coverage which he knew or should have known A.H. was seeking, coverage which included physician office visits, suggested that she purchase the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. While Mr. Lieberman attempted to give some limited explanation of his plan to A.H., based upon the manner in which he explained his plan at hearing, it is understandable that A.H. did not understand what she was purchasing, or, more specifically, that the plan, while including some health care coverage, did not include coverage for physician office visits. On April 11, 2003, Mr. Lieberman sold or arranged for the sale of the same Plan Products to A.H. that he had sold to W.E., described in Finding of Fact 30, supra. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman knew or should have known that he was selling A.H. a product which she was not interested in purchasing and that he was not providing her with a significant part of the insurance coverage she was interested in purchasing, coverage of physician office visits. While Mr. Lieberman gave some limited explanation of what the Chamber Card was, he did not fully explain to A.H. that it was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; that it would not pay for physician office visits; or that it only provided some unspecified discount on the cost of physician office visits. Like W.E., A.H. signed the Acknowledgment and Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement and Disclosures quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 35, and the disclaimer quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 36. The Acknowledgements and the disclaimer were deficient for the same reasons described in Findings of Fact 35 and 36. Like W.E., even though A.H. issued separate checks made payable to "A.C.B.L." (the American Contract Bridge League), Seabury & Smith (for the Major Medical Insurance Plan), United American (for the Hospital Insurance Plan), and National Medical Services (for the Chamber Card); signed the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and an Acknowledgement & Disclosures; and signed the disclaimer contained in a form titled "Medical Benefits Plan," A.H., unlike Mr. Lieberman, did not understand that she was purchasing a product which she had not requested and did not want. Having explained to Mr. Lieberman that she wanted a policy that covered physician office visits and not having been told that was not what she was purchasing, she simply relied upon Mr. Lieberman. After enrolling A.H. in the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, Mr. Lieberman mailed all the documents which A.H. had signed on April 11, 2003, to her. Some time after receiving the documents concerning the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, A.H. cancelled all of the Plan Products. Although there was some language in the Acknowledgement and Disclosures and the form titled "Medical Benefits Plan" signed by A.H. indicating that some part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan was not insurance, due to the ambiguity of the language of the Acknowledgement and the Disclaimer, the other language normally associated with insurance used in the documents, and the lack of coherent explanation provided by Mr. Lieberman, it is found that, as to A.H., Mr. Lieberman: Did not inform her that the Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; "Portrayed" the Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan, or policy; and Sold her products, none of which provided insurance coverage for the cost of physician office visits. Customer R.G. (Count III of the Administrative Complaint). R.G. did not testify at the final hearing. The factual allegations of Count III of the Administrative Complaint were not proved. Customer J.E. (Count IV of the Administrative Complaint). Prior to January 17, 2003, J.E. spoke with Mr. Lieberman by telephone. J.E. explained to Mr. Lieberman that he was interested in purchasing health insurance to replace the Blue Cross/Blue Shield health-care insurance he currently had. On January 17, 2003, J.E. met with Mr. Lieberman (Stipulated Facts) at his home to discuss purchasing health-care insurance. He explained to Mr. Lieberman that he was interested in a policy to replace his current policy with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. J.E. specifically requested a policy that covered physician office visits. Mr. Lieberman, rather than providing insurance coverage which he knew or should have known J.E. was seeking, coverage which included physician office visits, suggested that he purchase the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. While Mr. Lieberman attempted to give some limited explanation of his plan to J.E., based upon the manner in which he explained his plan at hearing, it is understandable that J.E. did not understand what he was purchasing, or, more specifically, that the plan, while including some health care coverage, did not include coverage for physician office visits. On January 17, 2003, Mr. Lieberman sold or arranged for the sale to J.E. of the same Plan Products he sold to W.E. described in Finding of Fact 30, supra. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman knew or should have known that he was selling J.E. a product which he was not interested in purchasing and that he was not providing him with a significant part of the insurance coverage he was interested in purchasing, coverage for physician office visits. While Mr. Lieberman gave some limited explanation of what the Chamber Card was, he did not fully explain to J.E. that it was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; that it would not pay for physician office visits; or that it only provided some unspecified discount on the costs of physician office visits. Like W.E. and A.H., J.E. also signed the Acknowledgment and Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement and Disclosures quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 35, and the disclaimer quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 36. The Acknowledgements and the disclaimer were deficient for the same reasons described in Findings of Fact 35 and 36. Like W.E. and A.H., even though J.E.. issued separate checks made payable to "A.C.B.L." (the American Contract Bridge League), Seabury & Smith (for the Major Medical Insurance Plan), United American (for the Hospital Insurance Plan), and National Medical Services (for the Chamber Card); signed the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and an Acknowledgement & Disclosures; and signed the disclaimer contained in a form titled "Medical Benefits Plan," J.E., unlike Mr. Lieberman, did not understand that he was purchasing a product which he had not requested and did not want. Having explained to Mr. Lieberman that he wanted a policy that covered physician office visits and not having been told that was not what he was purchasing, he simply relied upon Mr. Lieberman. After enrolling J.E. in the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, Mr. Lieberman mailed all the documents which J.E. had signed on January 17, 2003, to him. Some time after receiving the documents concerning the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, J.E. cancelled all of the Plan Products. Although there was some language in the Acknowledgement and Disclosures and the form titled "Medical Benefits Plan" signed by J.E. indicating that some part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan was not insurance, due to the ambiguity of the language of the Acknowledgement and the disclaimer, the lack of opportunity to read the documents before he signed them, the other language normally associated with insurance used in the documents, and the lack of coherent explanation provided by Mr. Lieberman, it is found that, as to J.E., Mr. Lieberman: Did not inform him that the Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; "Portrayed" the Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan, or policy; and Sold him products, none of which provided insurance coverage for the cost of physician office visits. The Administrative Complaint. On January 26, 2004, the Department issued a four- count Administrative Complaint against Mr. Lieberman. (Stipulated Facts).7 The Administrative Complaint contains four counts, one each for Mr. Lieberman's association with W.E. (Count I), A.H. (Count II), R.G. (Count III), and J.E. (Count IV). The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lieberman's conduct with all four individuals violated Section 626.611(6), (7), and (8), Florida Statutes, and Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that, as to A.H., Mr. Lieberman violated Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. In support of the alleged statutory violations, the Department alleged, in part, that with regard to all four individuals: Mr. Lieberman "did not inform [his customers] that The Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan or policy"; Mr. Liberman "portrayed The Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan or policy"; and That "[n]one of the products you, CHARLES STEVEN LIEBERMAN, sold to [W.E., A.H., R.G., and J.E.] provide insurance coverage for the cost of doctors' visits."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Charles Steven Lieberman violated Sections 626.611(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, and IV of the Administrative Code; dismissing Count III of the Administrative Code; and suspending his licenses for a period of 12 months from the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2004.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Daniel Bruce Caughey has been licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent at least since 1981. He began working for Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. in 1971 as a file clerk. Once he was licensed, he worked as a salesman. In 1977, he assumed the executive vice-presidency of the agency, a position he still holds. Until the middle of March, 1983, respondent'- father, William Edward Caughey, managed the agency. He continues to own all 1,000 shares the corporation has issued, although he has not written a policy since he turned management of the agency over to the respondent and his brother Randy in 1983. In 1982 and thereafter until Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. (JORO), a multi-line general agency, stopped underwriting automobile insurance, Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. brokered automobile insurance through JORO. When an account current bookkeeping dispute arose between Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. and JORO, William Edward Caughey retained an accounting firm, Sizemore. On Sizemore's advice, he rejected JORO's claim for more than $20,900. On October 21, 1983, a JORO representative told Daniel Bruce Caughey that JORO would no longer deal with Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. unless he signed an "Individual Guarantee Agreement," personally guaranteeing the insurance agency's corporate indebtedness; and executed a promissory note in JORO's favor in the amount of $16,941. Respondent executed the documents. On December 3, 1986, JORO brought suit against the corporation and respondent personally. No. 86-21454 (Fla. 13th Cir.). On August 13, 1987, the court entered judgment against both defendants in the amount of $6,595.94. Jordan Roberts & Co. v. Cauqhey, No. 86-21454 (Fla. 13th Cir.; Aug. 13, 1987). Neither respondent nor the agency has paid the judgment. With the possible exception of filing the complaint that eventuated in the present proceedings, JORO has made no effort to collect. In Count I, JORO's complaint alleges the existence of a brokerage agreement between JORO and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc., entered into "[o]n or about April 27, 1982"; execution and delivery of respondent's guarantee "[o]n or about October 21, 1983"; and the agency's indebtedness "for premiums on policies underwritten by [JORO] for the sum of $20,975.36." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. In Count II, the complaint also alleges execution and delivery of a promissory note "[o]n or about October 21, 1983," without, however, explicitly indicating its relationship (if any) with the guarantee executed the same date. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The final judgment does not specify which count(s) JORO recovered on. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Attached to the complaint are copies of the promissory note, executed by ?CAUGHEY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., By: D B Caughey Vice President"; the guarantee, executed in the same way; and the brokerage agreement, executed on behalf of Caughey Insurance Agency by "William E. Caughey, President." Although the Individual Guarantee Agreement names respondent as guarantor in the opening paragraph, the corporation is shown as guarantor on the signature line. At hearing, both Daniel Bruce Caughey and William Edward Caughey testified that neither had withheld premiums owed JORO, and this testimony was not controverted.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 2nd day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, respondent became an officer after the brokerage agreement had been executed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the judgment could also be based on the promissory note. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, respondent did not sign as an individual guarantor. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 10 and 12 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, evidence respondent himself adduced showed that the judgment had not been satisfied. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Elias, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire McDonald, Fleming & Moorehead 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3-C Pensacola, FL 32501 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
