Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Dale Joseph Dyer, was eligible for licensure and licensed as a Health Insurance Agent in Florida, and the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, (Department), was the State agency responsible for the regulation of the insurance industry in this state. At some time prior to the months of February, 1988, Harry L. Laws, a retired auctioneer, and his wife, Nina, had held Medicare Supplement health insurance policies issued by National States Insurance Company, (National States). For the most part, they had been satisfied with their policies and the service they received on claims filed thereunder, but because of the company's failure to pay one claim, they had terminated their previous relationship with it, and had taken a similar policy from United American Insurance Company, (United American). In February, 1988, when he still had not received the payment he thought he should have received from National States, Mr. Laws called the local Tampa agent, Diversified Health Services, to complain. In response, Respondent's supervisor, Mr. Slott, sent Respondent and an associate, Mr. Chappuis, to the Laws home in an effort to solve the claims problem and to get the Laws to come back as policy holders of National States. When Respondent and Mr. Chappuis arrived at the Laws home, they went over the disputed claim and the former policy with the clients. Ultimately, Respondent agreed to take the disputed bills back to the office with him and he represented that he would see they were paid. However, Respondent and Mr. Chappuis worked hard to sell Mr. and Mrs. Laws new coverage with National States. At first Mr. Laws was not interested as he was satisfied with the coverage he had with United American. However, Respondent and Chappuis, working in tandem, represented that their National States policy would provide better coverage for less money, and that United American would be raising its rates in the near future. As a result of these claims, Mr. Laws purchased from them a Medicare Supplement policy for himself and also for his wife. The premium for both policies, together, was between $2,000.00 and $2,100.00. One of the important features of the new National States policies was a provision providing vision, hearing and dental coverage which was not provided under either Medicare or the United American policy. This was a major selling point of the policy in issue. Both Mr. and Mrs. Laws contend, though both Respondent and Mr. Chappuis deny it, that she advised Respondent she already wore a hearing aid but it was giving her trouble and she needed to have two new ones, one for each ear. Notwithstanding that the policy application signed by Mrs. Laws reflects a statement to the effect she did not wear a hearing aid, she claims she did not see that entry which was made by Respondent. In addition, on the day she and her husband were visited by the Respondent and Mr. Chappuis, she was not wearing her hearing aid because it bothered her. Though Respondent denies knowing Mrs. Laws already wore a hearing aid, considering the evidence as a whole, it is found that disclosure of that fact was clearly made by both Mr. and Mrs. Laws, and Respondent knew it. The Laws contend, and it is so found, that either Respondent or Mr. Chappuis advised Mrs. Laws to purchase only one aid at a time, one each year, so the new insurance would cover their cost. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Laws can be sure as to which agent made the statement, but they recall that both were present at the time and one confirmed what the other said. When the claim for the first new hearing aid was submitted by the Laws, it was denied because coverage applied only to an "initial purchase". Since Mrs. Laws already used a hearing aid, the new one purchased was not covered. Another selling point utilized by Respondent and his associate was their representation that Medicare supplemental coverage under the new National States policy would not be effective until six months after issuance of the policy. Respondent urged that since the existing United American policy had six more months to go, if Mr. Laws signed up that day, he would have continuing coverage when that existing policy expired. In actuality, the six month delay under the terms of the National States policy pertained only to existing conditions. Coverage for new conditions would be immediate and would duplicate coverage provided under the United American policy. Mr. Laws claims, and it is so found, that he was satisfied with his United American policy and really didn't want to change. He did not want or need two Medicare Supplement policies and did not believe both would pay for the same illness. He bought the new National States policy only because of the Respondent's representations and the urging of both Respondent and Mr. Chappuis. They told him he could recover under both policies, and, it would appear, he could though this practice was not recommended. On the day of that first visit, Respondent and Mr. Chappuis also discussed with Mr. laws a nursing home policy. This policy was expensive and Mr. Laws wanted to think about it before deciding. When Respondent came back the next day, and brought a copy of the policy, it looked good to Mr. Laws and he bought one for both himself and his wife at a premium of $679.30 each. When the new policies arrived, Respondent and Mr. Chappuis went to the Laws home and went over them with them. At this time, Mr. Laws indicated he still had not received payment on the prior policy claim he had discussed with them on their first visit. Respondent and Mr. Chappuis told Mr. Laws a story about processing problems and procedures, and when Mr. Laws threatened to cancel the new National States policies, they again promised to check on his claim. He tried several times thereafter to contact his agent by phone without success. By the time he finally decided to take some action, the 30 day "cancellation with refund" period on the new policies was up. He filed a complaint with the Department of Insurance and only then was he reimbursed the premium he had paid, less the amount paid by the company on a dental claim under the new policy. He still has not received payment for the claim submitted under the old National States policy. On or about August 30, 1988, Respondent went to the home of Dorothy T. Hendryx, an 82 year old widow, in Neptune Beach, Florida. Mrs. Hendryx does not remember if she called Mr. Dyer to come, if she sent in a response card which prompted his visit, or if he just showed up at the door. In fact, he was sent there by his company to see why her prior policies with National States had been allowed to lapse. According to Respondent, Mrs. Hendryx indicated she had not intended to let her policies lapse. As a result of their discussion, the details of which she does not remember, Mrs. Hendryx purchased from National States, through Respondent, a Medicare Supplement policy with riders to (1) increase the supplement to Medicare, Part B, (2) provide dental, vision and hearing care, and (3) provide coverage for extended care facility confinement, with a total annual premium of $1,246.00. She also purchased a nursing home policy with an annual premium of $1,388.00. Mrs. Hendryx paid both premiums in full at the time she signed the applications on August 30, 1988. Respondent contends that during the visit Mrs. Hendryx showed him her existing recently purchased Pioneer policy which he compared with the product he was selling. Not surprisingly, he found his product to be better. At the time she purchased the two above-described policies from Mr. Dyer, Mrs. Hendryx also had a Major Medicare Supplement Policy issued by United American, through its agent, Mr. Proffit, on May 20, 1988, which was due to expire on May 20, 1989. Mrs. Hendryx cannot recall if, at the time she spoke with the Respondent, she told him she had the Pioneer and the United American policies. At hearing he denied that she did or that he knew of their existence. However, he admitted comparing the Pioneer policy to the one he was selling, so he must have known of its existence. Further, the United American policy bears several handwritten and hand printed notations on the cover. Those that are written in cursive were identified by Mrs. Hendryx as being in her handwriting. The hand printed notation, "Do Not Renew on 5-89," though at first identified by Mrs. Hendryx as hers, was determined by an expert questioned document examiner, contrary to the denials of the Respondent, to be in his handwriting. Therefore, in light of this expert opinion and Respondent's admission at the hearing to the sale of a National States policy to Mr. Law with knowledge of a preexisting United American policy, it is found that Respondent was also aware, at the time he sold the National States Medicare Supplement policy to Mrs. Hendryx, of the existence of a Medicare Supplement policy issued to her by United American in May, 1988. In addition, On or about October 1, 1988, Mr. Dyer again went to Ms. Hendryx's home and on this occasion sold her two additional medical-surgical expense policies with National States, with a total additional premium of $1,336.00. Though Mrs. Hendryx recalls little of the substance of the conversation she had with Respondent, she is sure that at no time did he force her to buy the policies or harass or threaten her, nor was he mean to her. She purchased the policies from him because she felt she needed them. Neither United American nor Pioneer Life Insurance Company received a replacement letter from the Respondent on behalf of National States as a result of the sales he made to the Laws and to Mrs. Hendryx. Replacement letters are required to be filled out and sent by an agent who sells to a client a new policy which he believes may replace an existing policy. In the instant case, the National States policy sold to Mr. Laws did not replace the existing United American policy but was in addition to it. The policies sold to Mrs. Hendryx did, however, replace the United American policy she had. In the opinion of Ms. Ferrell, the Department's Administrator of the Health Section and an individual with 42 years of experience in the insurance field, much of the coverage sold to both the Laws and Mrs. Hendryx duplicated coverage they already had through Medicare or through policies they owned at the time Respondent sold them the National States policies. In her opinion, the United American policies held by both were good supplements which did not duplicate the coverage provided under Medicare. Specifically, as to the National States policies sold to the Laws: The Medicare Supplement policy duplicated the Part A coverage provided through their United American policy except that the United American policy paid somewhat larger benefits for a longer period. The Part B coverage duplicates but exceeds the benefits paid under the United American policy, depending upon the size of the claim, but pays the $75.00 deductible which the other policy does not. The vision, dental and hearing coverage pays 100% of the "initial" cost of a hearing aid and pays for dental and vision care, neither of which is covered by Medicare or the United American policy. With regard to the term "initial", the Department uses that definition found in the Webster dictionary which means the first device of that kind owned by the insured. Here, it would not have covered Mrs. Laws' replacement hearing aid. The National States Nursing Home Policy duplicates Medicare coverage for the first one hundred days. After the first one hundred days and the co- payment, the National States coverage does not duplicate anything. Medicare requires a three day hospital stay prior to entry into a nursing home before the home cost is covered. Further, Medicare pays for only skilled and intermediary care homes. The United American policy covers care in skilled homes only. Therefore the National States coverage for immediate entry into intermediate and custodial care homes is not duplicative of either Medicare or the United American coverage. With regard to the National States policy sold to Mrs. Hendryx: The National States Medicare Supplement policy duplicates the breadth of the preexisting United American coverage, though it pays somewhat less as to Medicare, Part A. It may duplicate the United American Part B coverage but the rider to increase Part B medical payments to 40% of Medicare eligible expense is reasonable and an extra benefit. The National States Nursing Home policy duplicates the coverage with regard to nursing homes contained in the other National States policies she had, in the Pioneer and United American policies, and to a large degree, by Medicare. That portion of the policy providing payment for home health care is unnecessary since Medicare pays 100% of all costs by a Medicare approved provider for an unlimited number of days. The National States Limited Medical Surgical coverage, relating to Part B, ( Medical Services), is usually sold to fill the gap between the amount paid under Major Medical contracts and the doctors' usual charges. It was not designed for use by Medicare patients since it will not do anything more than Medicare and a Medicare Supplement policy does. The National States Medical Treatment policy, relating to Part B, to a great degree duplicates the prior described medical/surgical policy, and taken together, they duplicate the coverage of Medicare and a Medicare Supplement policy. They are clearly not needed. All together, Mrs. Hendryx was sold a number of policies which will pay her far more than is needed to meet her medical care needs. The supplemental policies were designed to provide financial coverage of those expenses not covered by Medicare. They were not designed as an investment to provide duplicate payments over and above the uncovered area. To use them as they were used here by the Respondent results in an overcompensation to the insured which has the effect of raising premiums to all policy holders. A qualified insurance agent, as Respondent holds himself out to be, should know this. A recommendation not to use policies in this manner is contained in a pamphlet published for insured by National States, the Respondent's company. Both Respondent and Mr. Chappuis deny in any way exerting pressure on Mr. Laws. When they went to his home to see about the claim complaint, they determined that though the Laws had good coverage, they could provide them better coverage by selling them a new policy. No replacement letter was sent because they did not feel it was required since the United American policy in effect was not being cancelled. This is true. The effect of the sale, however, was to largely duplicate existing coverage, except for the dental, vision and hearing coverage in the new policy, and there is a showing of some misrepresentation regarding that. Mr. Chappuis, who has visited between twenty and thirty clients with the Respondent, believes that at no time did Respondent misrepresent to or mislead the Laws. In Chappuis' opinion, Respondent has the technical competence to properly sell insurance and knows his product. Mr. Chappuis' credibility is somewhat suspect, however and his testimony in this regard must be weighed on the scale of his own self interest. Both Chappuis and the Respondent agree that Mr. Laws' dissatisfaction with National States, and the reason for his complaint, was not the sale of these policies but the failure by the company to pay the claim from the prior policy. For the most part, Mr. Laws agrees, and it is so found. As to Mrs. Hendryx, Respondent did not fill out a replacement form regarding the sale to her because he did not feel she was replacing anything. He claims not to have known of any existing policy except the Pioneer policy. This has already been determined not to be so. To the time of the hearing, he claims no coverage he sold duplicates any coverage Mrs. Hendryx had either by policy or by Medicare. While there were some additions, there was, nonetheless, extensive duplication of Medicare coverage in addition to coverage not pertinent to an individual in Mrs. Hendryx's situation. The vision, dental and hearing coverage would be of limited benefit to her in light of her preexisting use of dentures and glasses and a hearing aid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a health insurance agent in Florida be suspended for a period of six months and that he pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00, but that in lieu of implementation of the suspension, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years under such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Department of Insurance. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. Accepted. 19. Accepted. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. - 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT A1. - A5. Accepted and incorporated herein. A6. & A7. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. B1. Accepted and incorporated herein. B2. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. B3. Accepted and incorporated herein. B4. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which is rejected. BS. Not a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Kelli Hanley Crabb, Esquire Battaglia, Ross, Hastings and Dicus 980 Tyrone Blvd. P.O. Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents and the regulation of the insurance business in Florida. Respondent, Richard M. Rinker, was licensed by the Petitioner as a health insurance agent engaged in the business of soliciting, selling and servicing health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company. Levon H. and Joan D. Sprague, husband and wife, moved to Florida from New York in August, 1991. Prior to moving to Florida, the Spragues operated a restaurant in New York and purchased health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for themselves and some of their employees. They also owned a H.I.P. policy which was similar to a health maintenance organization, but both that coverage and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were dropped when they moved to Florida. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Sprague were getting older, and because both had indications of possible future health problems based on experience and family history, upon the recommendation of Mrs. Sprague's father, who had purchased coverage from Respondent and was satisfied with the service received, they contacted Respondent and met with him about purchasing health insurance. The first meeting was on January 6, 1992. At that time, the Sprague's made Respondent aware of the fact that they had no health insurance coverage at that time and that they wanted to purchase coverage which would give them 100 percent reimbursement of all bills for medical care rendered. After some discussion, they agreed to accept less coverage for doctors' bills and other professional services, but were quite adamant in reiterating they wanted a policy that would cover 100 percent of the cost of hospitalization. They emphasized this because of Mr. Sprague's family's history of heart problems and they wanted to be sure the hospital expense would be covered in full. They felt the doctors could wait a while for payment of the full amount of their bills. During the course of his presentation, Respondent utilized a document called a National States Limited Medical-Surgical Hospital Confinement Plan which purportedly outlined the specifics of policy coverage. Under that portion entitled "Specific Benefits", the form read, "This policy pays percent of usual and customary expenses of the following type:". Under the blank space, in smaller type, were the numbers "10, 20, 30, 40". In the blank area, Respondent, by hand, inserted 80 percent. Above, and to the right of that insertion, he also placed the numbers, "100 percent" and "40 percent." Respondent explains this as being his attempt to provide answers to questions asked of him by Mrs. Sprague. He noted that his company does not offer a major medical policy such as desired by the Spragues, and that the only way he could provide coverage close to that which they wanted was to combine policies. Using a yellow highlighter, he also highlighted the words, "Doctor's charges", "doctor's office", "clinic", "hospital", "home", and "surgical or medical center." He also highlighted the terms "annual mammography screening" because Mrs. Sprague had specifically inquired about coverage of that procedure. On that visit, Respondent sold the Spragues two policies each. These were "MSH-1" and "MSH-2" policies which, the Spragues recall, Respondent indicated would provide the total coverage they wanted. Initially, the premium was to be $3,600.00 for the year, but when the Spragues indicated they could not afford that much, after calling his office, Respondent was able to offer them 6 months coverage for one half the price. They were satisfied with this and accepted the policies. Mr. Rinker received as his commission 45 percent of the premium paid in by the Spragues for the first year of the policy. When he departed the Spragues' home, he left with them the policy outline he utilized in his presentation, a large manila envelope containing information regarding his office hours and phone number, and a MSP form required by law. The coverage was not heavily used at first. When, during the first six month period, claims were initially denied because of the waiting period, the Spragues accepted that. After the expiration of the waiting period, all claims submitted for doctors' visits and mammography were covered to at least 80 percent of the amount expected by the Spragues. This was, however, because of the combined benefits paid by the two policies. Neither policy, alone, paid 100 percent percent of the claim. The Spragues were satisfied with this because it was not hospitalization. Later on, however, it became apparent that Mr. Sprague would have to enter the hospital for coronary bypass surgery, and he was admitted on an emergency basis. Before the surgery was done, however, the Spragues wanted to be sure the hospital bills would be paid in full, and they had their daughter- in-law, who had extensive experience in the insurance business prior to that time, to examine the policies. Her review of the policies generated some questions in her mind as to whether they provided 100 percent coverage of all hospital costs. To satisfy herself and her in-laws, utilizing the telephone number for Respondent on the materials left by him with the Spragues, she contacted him and asked, specifically, whether the policies he had sold to the Spragues, provided the 100 percent coverage they desired. His answer was somewhat evasive and non- responsive to her inquiry. He said, "Don't worry. She'll [Ms. Sprague] be able to sleep at night. She has a good policy." This did not satisfy either Ms. Sprague or her mother-in-law, and so she called Respondent again. During this second conversation he admitted that for at least a part of the cost, there was a 40 percent coinsurance provision. Respondent claims that during these calls, Ms. Sprague did not tell him that her father-in-law was to have surgery but only told him about tests. The tests were covered and the bills therefor paid by National States. By the time of these calls, however, Mr. Sprague was already in the hospital and facing the surgery the following morning. There was little that could be done. Mr. Sprague wanted to cancel the surgery but his wife would not allow this and the operation was accomplished. The hospital bills received by the Spragues amounted to approximately $140,000. Of this, the insurance company paid approximately $18,000. Ultimately, the Spragues and the hospital were able to reach an agreement for settlement of the obligation for $40,000. In order to satisfy this, Mr. Sprague was required to liquidate all his investments. He still owes the doctors a substantial sum but is making periodic payments to liquidate those obligations. The policies which Respondent sold to the Spragues were limited medical and surgical expense policies which pay only a limited percentage of incurred medical expenses over a limited period of time. Neither policy pays 100 percent of any medical or surgical expense. Respondent did not clearly communicate this fact to the Spragues. They suffered from the misconception that the policies sold to them by the Respondent paid 100 percent coverage for hospital expense, 80 percent for doctor fees, and 40 percent for medication. Petitioner presented no evidence that what Respondent did was below the standards accepted of sales agents within the health insurance industry. On the other hand, James Quinn, an insurance agent since 1975, who has taught life and health insurance and the legal responsibility of agents in the health insurance area with the approval of the Department since 1985, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Quinn noted that there are three types of medical policies in use, including basic medical expense, major medical, and comprehensive major medical. The first of these, basic medical expense, permits liberal underwriting and pays policy limits. In Mr. Quinn's opinion, based on the age and preexisting conditions that the Sprague's have, major medical coverage, like they wanted, would cost between seven and ten thousand dollars annually, excluding deductibles. Health insurance coverage outlines, such as used by Respondent in his presentation to the Spragues are, according to Mr. Quinn, reasonably self-explanatory and are left with the insured either when the policy is applied for or is delivered. In the former case, the client is able to read the outline and cancel the policy before delivery, if he so desires. In the latter case, the insured has a set number of days to read the policy after delivery and cancel if he so desires. These outlines do not substitute for the policy, however, and generally, the agent prefers to deliver the policy personally so he can go over it again with the insured. According to Mr. Quinn, it is difficult to explain coverage to prospective insureds because of their unfamiliarity with the terminology and the available benefits. He concluded that the action of the Respondent, in issue here, whereby he used the coverage outline to explain the coverages to the Spragues, was consistent with proper agent conduct and was within industry standards. He also concluded that based on what Respondent had available to sell to the Spragues, he sold them the best package he could, at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this matter finding Respondent, Richard Michael Rinker, guilty of a violation of Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6); 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(a)(1), (1)(e)(1), and (1)(k)(1), Florida statutes, and suspending his license as a health insurance agent for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0089 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to finding Mr. Quinn is an expert regarding insurance standards and business practices, but rejected as insinuating those opinions are binding on the Hearing Officer. Rejected notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Quinn. Accepted, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. Second sentence accepted as to the furnishing, but the quality of the information was less than clear. Balance accepted. & 8. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services improperly determined the Petitioners' rate of Medicaid reimbursement for the period January 1, 1990, through June 30, 1990?
Findings Of Fact The Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule have been determined to be valid in a Final Order entered simultaneously with this Recommended Order. The Department's action in freezing the Medicaid reimbursement rate of the Petitioners in these cases was taken pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order in these cases dismissing the Petitioners' amended petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 26 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Case Numbers 91-4893, 91-4894, 91-4895, 91-4914, 91-4929, 91-5837 and 91-6191 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 4. 2 5-6. 3 13. 4 7. 5 3 and 13-14. 6 15. 7 17-19. 8 20. 9 21. 10 22. 11 23. 12 8. 13 12. 14 11. 15 24. 16 25-27. 17 28-29. 18 29. 19 30-32. 20 34-37. See 39. The last three sentences are not relevant. The determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 39. The last two sentences are not relevant. The determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 23 40-41. 24 43. 25 45. 26 46. 27 47. 28 48. The last two sentences are argument. 29 49. 30 42. 31 29 and 32. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the Department's motive for providing assurances to HCFA were anything other than to meet federal requirements. 32 28. 33 55. 34 34-35. See 59-60 and 63. The detailed findings of fact concerning the nature of the Department's inflationary analysis are not necessary. HCFA rejected this analysis and based its decision on other information provided by the Department. Additionally, the determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 35 See 60-63. 36 52-54. 37 54. 38 55 and hereby accepted. 39 59 and hereby accepted. 40 See 60-65. HCFA did not "reject" the Department's proposed plan amendment. 41 See 63. 42-43 See 60-66. 44-46, 50-54 Although the proposed findings of fact concerning what the Department told HCFA are generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. As previously stated, the determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 47 Hereby accepted. 48-49 Hereby accepted except for the proposed findings that the Department "misled", "misrepresented" or provided "inaccurate and misleading information." The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 49 is not relevant. 55 67. 56 Hereby accepted. 57 Not relevant. 58 69. 59 70. 60 71. 61 50 and 73. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 4. 3 5. 4 6. 5 3 and 13-14. 6 15. 7 17-19. 8 20. 9 21. 10 22. 11 23. 12 8. 13 11. 14 24. 15 25-26. 16 Hereby accepted. 17 27 and 29-32. 18 34-37. 19 39-41. 20 41. 21 43. 22 33. 23 42. 24 52-53 and 58. 25 54. 26 55. 27 56. 28 57. 29 60-65. 30 67. 31 68. 32 69. 33 70. 34 71. 35 50 and 73. 36 72. 37 73. 38 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas C. Fox, Esquire Michael D. Smith, Esquire 1200 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 David Pius Medicaid Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 230 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent The Administrators Corporation (hereinafter "TAC") has been an authorized administrator, and Respondent Charles N. Zalis (hereinafter "Zalis") has been licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a legal expense insurance sales representative in the State of Florida. Zalis is the chief executive officer of TAC. TAC is not licensed in Florida as an insurer. An authorized administrator in Florida may engage in the solicitation, negotiation, transaction and/or sale of insurance in Florida if such activity takes place pursuant to an agreement between the authorized administrator and an authorized insurer. Life and Health Insurance Company of America (hereinafter "Life & Health"), which is not a party to this administrative proceeding, is an authorized insurer in Florida. On April 13, 1988, TAC entered into a contract with Life & Health to market and service group health insurance. The term of that contract was for four years and one month. Life & Health attempted to terminate its Administrator Agreement with TAC by letter dated March 16, 1989, effective immediately. The date on which the responsibilities under that Administrator Agreement terminated, if ever, is an issue in dispute between Life & Health and TAC. The Department takes no position on that issue. That issue is the subject of a civil lawsuit filed in Broward County, between Life & Health and TAC, which is currently being litigated. Although Life & Health's original position was that the contract between it and TAC terminated as of March 16, 1989, that position apparently changed because Life & Health continued paying claims up to July 1, 1989. TAC's position was that Life & Health's responsibilities under that contract did not terminate until September 26, 1989, when George Washington, an authorized group health insurance carrier in Florida, agreed to assume the risk for the block of business retroactive to July 1, 1989. TAC could have obtained a replacement carrier earlier than September 26, 1989, if the Department had advised TAC and Zalis as to the procedure involved to allow Summit Homes, an authorized property and casualty insurer, to broaden the scope of its certificate of authority to include group health insurance. The simple procedure could have been accomplished in as little as 24 to 48 hours. A group health insurance carrier remains on the risk to its policyholders until there has been a valid cancellation or termination of that coverage. In the pending Circuit Court litigation between Life & Health and TAC, the validity of the termination or cancellation and the date of same are ultimate issues in that law suit and have not yet been determined by the Court. On March 27, 1989, Life & Health sent a letter to agents informing them of its termination of its relationship with TAC and that it would not accept any new business written after March 16, 1989. The evidence in this cause, however, indicates that Life & Health did continue to accept new business after that date. The Department became aware of the dispute between Life & Health and TAC on June 8, 1989. The Department knew as of July 12, 1989, that TAC was continuing to write business on Life & Health "paper." At some point after the attempted March 16, 1989, termination of the contract by Life & Health, TAC and Life & Health informally agreed to a July 1, 1989, date after which Life & Health would no longer be responsible for any claims and TAC would have a replacement insurer in place to take over the block of business. That agreement was based upon TAC and Life & Health each agreeing to cooperate with each other and to take certain actions to facilitate the transfer of the book of business. Both the Department and the Circuit Court were aware of the informal agreement whereby Life & Health agreed to remain on the risk for the block of business at least through July 1, 1989, and Zalis and TAC would issue no further policies on Life & Health "paper" and would not remain involved in the processing or payment of claims after July 1, 1989. Prior to July 12, 1989, those matters required to take place in connection with the July 1, 1989, "cutoff" date had not been accomplished, and Zalis and TAC continued writing new business on Life & Health "paper" believing that Life & Health was still legally responsible. Zalis informed the Department's investigator on July 12, 1989, that he was writing and that he intended to continue to write new business on Life & Health "paper." No evidence was presented to show that the Department notified Zalis or TAC that they could not do so, and the Department took no action to stop that activity. Additionally, Life & Health took no action to enjoin TAC or Zalis from writing new business on Life & Health "paper." The evidence does suggest that Life & Health may have continued to accept the benefits and liabilities. The premiums for policies written by TAC on Life & Health "paper" after July 1, 1989, were not forwarded to Life & Health; rather, they were retained by TAC in a trust account. Zalis and TAC offered to deposit those monies with the Circuit Court in which the litigation between TAC and Life & Health was pending or to transmit those monies to the Department to insure that the monies would be available for the payment of claims. Pursuant to an agreement with the Department, the monies representing those premium payments were transmitted to the Department On September 26, 1989, George Washington Insurance Company, an authorized health insurance company in the State of Florida, agreed to take over the block of business from Life & Health, retroactive to July 1, 1989. Life & Health, however, had not yet signed the assumption agreement to transfer its responsibility to George Washington Insurance Company as of the time of the final hearing in this cause. TAC and Zalis did not place any Florida insurance business with any companies not authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent Zalis has been in the insurance business for 26 years and enjoys a good reputation for honesty and integrity. Zalis and TAC have never had prior administrative action taken against them. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, there had been no Circuit Court determination of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Life & Health's termination of the Administrators Agreement nor of the date of that termination, if any.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and dismissing the Order to Show Cause filed against them. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5981 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6-9, 14-17, 20, 21, and 25-27 have been adopted either in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13, and 22 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 19 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 18, 23, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter D. Ostreich, Esquire Office of Treasurer and Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Jerome H. Shevin, Esquire Wallace, Engels, Pertnoy, Martin, & Solowsky, P.A. CenTrust Financial Center 21st Floor 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Davis, Marks & Rutledge, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner became employed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Weights, on November 5, 1982. Upon being accepted for employment Petitioner completed and submitted to proper authorities the forms necessary to be covered by the State's group health insurance program and authorized the appropriate deductions from his salary to cover the premiums. On several occasions, he and his wife inquired through the Department of Transportation regarding their failure to receive an insurance card. Each time they were told the insurance card would be forthcoming and only administrative delays in processing the application were causing the delay. During this time no deductions were being taken from Petitioner's pay. In June, 1983 Petitioner incurred two doctor bills for his wife and son (Exhibit 1) in the total amount of $50, of which he paid $10 with the remainder forwarded to Blue Cross and Blue Shield who administers the state's health insurance plan. Blue Cross and Blue Shield had no record of Petitioner's insurance and the claim was denied. Petitioner paid the additional $40 charges. Although evidence was not submitted to show why Petitioner's application was not properly processed or what finally got this application back on track, the proper steps were finally taken and Petitioner was credited with having been covered with health insurance in accordance with his application from December 1982 and billed for premiums due from that date. This resulted in the assessment by the state of $436.14 for back premiums. Since he was not on the Blue Cross register in June 1983, Petitioner contests the assessment as a condition to remaining a participating member in the state health insurance program.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Insurance should discipline the Respondent on charges contained in the Administrative Complaint filed June 1, 1994. The Administrative Complaint charges that the Respondent failed to accurately disclose certain aspects of the true physical condition of two applicants for health insurance and failed to disclose to the applicants the existence of certain deductibles and a six-month waiting period for preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Blair John Reuther, is eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as an insurance agent. At the times referred to in this case, the Respondent was licensed to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Insurance Company (National States). Some time prior to April, 1993, National States solicited health insurance from Earl and Jessie Lane, an elderly couple who lived in Ft. Pierce, Florida, and invited them to return a postcard in order to express their interest in more information about health insurance policies National States had to offer. They sent in the postcard, and their names were referred to the Respondent. Without an additional contact with the Lanes, the Respondent went to their home during the week preceding April 3, 1993, and asked to be permitted to talk with them about National States health insurance policies in which they had expressed an interest. The Lanes invited him in, and the Respondent discussed their existing coverage. At the time, the Lanes had a Level A Medicare Supplement policy, which carried the standard deductibles for such a policy. After some additional discussion, the Respondent promised to return with his proposals and with applications. On Saturday, April 3, 1993, the Respondent returned to the Lane home and proposed to sell each of them a National States Level A Medicare Supplement policy and a limited benefit medical expense policy. It is found, contrary to the Lanes' testimony, that the Respondent did not tell the Lanes that the National States policies would "cover everything," that the Respondent told the Lanes that the National States Medicare Supplement policies had deductibles (just like their previous Level A Medicare Supplement policies), and that there was a six-month waiting period for preexisting conditions under the National States limited benefit medical expense policies. (There was no waiting period for preexisting conditions under any of the Medicare Supplement policies.) After discussing the proposal, the Lanes decided to apply for the National States policies being proposed by the Respondent. It is found that the Respondent went over the applications for the National States policies with the Lanes and filled out the applications in accordance with the information given to him by the Lanes. As to the medical questions on the applications, it is found that the Respondent read the questions aloud and recorded the answers given to him by the Lanes. Specifically, question 5 on the Medicare Supplement applications asked, in pertinent part: Does the Applicant have or had within the past 5 years any of the following: (Underline condition) Tumor, cancer, malignancy or growth of any kind? * * * c. High or low blood pressure, varicose veins or disorder of the heart or circulatory system? * * * Amputation, because of sickness, paraplegia, disease of the back or spine? Disease of the rectum or intestine, stomach, kidney, prostate, urinary bladder, liver, gall bladder? Question 6.b. asked, "Has the Applicant been confined in a hospital in the last five years? The Lanes answered, "no," to all of the questions set out in the preceding paragraph. They also signed the applications, which state in part: "I agree that all answers above are true and complete to the best of my knowledge." Effective April 14, 1993, National States issued the limited benefit medical expense policies for which the Lanes had applied; the Medicare Supplement policies were issued with effective dates of April 18, 1993. All four policies were delivered on April 22, 1993. The Respondent returned to the Lane home on April 30, 1993, to go over the policies with the Lanes and answer any questions they had. During the review of the policies after delivery, the Lanes never expressed to the Respondent any dissatisfaction with any of the policies. To the contrary, they both signed a statement that they had reviewed their policies with the Respondent, who had explained them in full. Jessie Lane contends that she told the Respondent that she "had had a heart problem, a small heart problem." She testified that, at the time of her deposition, she had a pace maker but that, at the time of the application, she "wasn't that bad . . . I was just having--missing heart beats." She also testified that she has: "a light case of arthritis. . . . Not bad." She also testified that she had been hospitalized during the five years preceding the applications: "That's when I had my heart problem too." Earl Lane contends that he told the Respondent that he had a back injury that required hospitalization several times, but he did not testify that he told the Respondent that he was hospitalized, or that he continued to have back problems, within the five years preceding the application. He testified that he had a swollen prostate that required surgery, but he did not testify that the surgery was within the five years preceding the application. He testified that he had skin cancer "at one time," but that it "was successfully treated" and "didn't amount to nothing." He did not testify that the cancer or the treatment was within the five years preceding the application. He contended for the first time in his deposition testimony that he had a "rupture," but not that he had it within the five years preceding the application. He testified during his deposition: "I've been in the hospital in the last five years." Later during his deposition, he was asked: "How many times have you been in the hospital in the last five years?" He answered: "Just once, I guess, before he was here." He did not clearly testify that he had been hospitalized within the five years preceding the application. Earl Lane also contended for the first time in his deposition testimony that he told the Respondent that he had varicose veins, but he did not testify that they were not surgically removed or that he still had them within the five years preceding the application. The Lanes also filed a complaint listing other alleged violations by the Respondent: (1) that the Respondent misrepresented that the National States policies covered dental and eyeglasses; (2) that these coverages duplicated policies the Lanes already had; (3) that the National States policies were more expensive than policies the Lanes already had; (4) that the National States policies did not pay skilled nursing; and (5) that the Respondent tricked the Lanes into signing a bank draft agreement. The Department chose not to charge those alleged violations, presumably either because there was insufficient evidence that they were true or because they were not violations. It appears that someone helped the Lanes draft their requests for refunds from National States and their initial list of complaints against the Respondent. Although the evidence was not clear who helped, it may well have been the insurance agent whose Medicare Supplement policies were replaced by National States and who was trying to recover the business. In response to the Lanes' request, dated May 7, 1993, to cancel the policies, National States cancelled the Medicare Supplement policies as if the request had been made within the 30 day cancellation period and refunded all but 5 percent of the premium, which was retained as a processing fee. In their cancellation request, the Lanes' alleged: "Our health conditions were not accurately written on the applications by agent Blair Reuther and we will not take any chances on not being paid on future medical bills for misrepresentations by this agent." Nonetheless, National States refused to cancel the limited benefit medical expense policies. They remained in full force and effect until they lapsed a year later for failure to pay the premium when next due. There is no evidence that National States investigated the Lanes' true health status. During the year that the National States limited benefit medical expense policies were in effect, National States paid out more in claims under the policies than the Lanes paid in premiums.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this case. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1995, 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 1st day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the Department's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated; however, the Respondent was responding to a "lead" given to him by his employer after the Lanes returned a postcard expressing interest. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (It was not clear from the evidence what the Respondent was told.) Accepted and incorporated; however, it is not clear from the evidence whether the Respondent should have answered the medical history questions on the application differently based on the information given to him by the applicants. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven that there were health conditions that should have been disclosed; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Blair John Reuther 8535 Blind Pass Drive, #202 Treasure Island, Florida 33706 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is required to reimburse the Respondent for prescription drugs acquired by the Petitioner through the Prescription Drug Program of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida during the latter part of 1985 and during 1986. His employment with the State began January 27, 1984. Prior to December 1, 1985, the Petitioner participated in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"). On October 31, 1985, the Petitioner signed a Change of Information form electing to terminate his participation in the State Plan and to begin participation in a Health Maintenance Organization (hereinafter referred to as an "HMO"). The HMO the Petitioner selected was the Capital Health Plan. The title of the form the Petitioner signed on October 31, 1985, contained the following: STATE OF FLORIDA EMPLOYEES GROUP HEALTH SELF INSURANCE PLAN CHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR USE ONLY BY A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THIS PLAN [Emphasis added]. Above the Petitioner's signature was the following "employee authorization": I hereby request the above changes in my coverage and/or insurance information in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan....[Emphasis added] Prior to terminating his coverage under the State Plan, the Petitioner was given a brochure titled "A Comparison of Health Benefit Plans Offered to Employees of the State of Florida" (hereinafter referred to as the "Comparison Brochure"). The brochure was for employees working in North Florida. The Comparison Brochure indicates there are two general types of health insurance plans available to state employees: HMO Benefit Plans and the State Plan. The Comparison Brochure also indicates there are four HMO Benefit Plans available. Capital Health Plan, the plan the Petitioner elected on October 31, 1985, is one of the clearly designated HMO Benefit Plans listed in the Comparison Brochure. The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for Capital Health Plan participants: "$3.00 co-payment at CHP pharmacy." The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for State Plan participants: "PPC provider not available at this time" if a preferred provider is used and "20 percent co-payment (7)" when a non-preferred provider is used. The reference to "(7)" is a footnote which provides: "Prescription Drug Plan will be implemented by 1-1-86, paying 100 percent after nominal dispensing fee." The Comparison Brochure contains the following other pertinent information: Along with the conventional group health self insurance plan administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the State of Florida offers its employees the opportunity to enroll in a different health care arrangement. This arrangement, called a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), is available to eligible employees who live within a specific geographic area surrounding the HMO. The Comparison Brochure contains other information that indicates that the State Plan and the Capital Health Plan HMO are completely different types or methods of obtaining health insurance coverage available to state employees. Based upon the information contained in the Comparison Brochure, which the Petitioner indicated he read, the Petitioner should have known that he was entitled to health insurance benefits under the Capital Health Plan HMO as of December 1, 1985, and that he was not entitled to any health insurance benefits under the State Plan. Sometime after December 20, 1985, the Petitioner received a letter from the Department of Administration which provided in pertinent part: Dear Participant: We are pleased to announce the new Prescription Drug Program. Effective January 1, 1986, coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through a prescription drug program serviced by Paid Prescriptions and National Rx Services, Inc. This program is specifically designed to save you money when you use a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) Pharmacy and Mail Service for your prescription drugs. [Emphasis added]. Included with the letter of December 20, 1985, was a "PLASTIC CARD to use at PPO and participating pharmacies" and a "brochure which gives you instruction on using the Program and a detachable patient profile for Mail Service." The prescription drug card the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed on it. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, which the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed at the top of the front cover of the brochure and elsewhere in the brochure. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, provided the following pertinent information: Coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through the Prescription Drug Program.... A toll-free telephone number was provided on the prescription drug card and the brochure which the Petitioner was instructed could be used if he had any questions. The prescription drug card sent to the Petitioner was sent to all state employees participating in the "State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan." It was not for use by state employees participating in the Capital Health Plan or other HMO's. The card was erroneously sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Because the Petitioner had terminated his coverage under the State Plan and elected to participate in an HMO effective December 1, 1985, he was not entitled to use the prescription drug card which he received from the Respondent. In order for the Respondent to have the prescription drug cards ready to be mailed to participants in the State Plan before January 1, 1986, the Respondent used information concerning participants prior to December 1, 1985. Evidently no effort was made by the Respondent to insure that participants who left the State Plan during the end of 1985 did not receive a prescription drug card. The Respondent did send a memorandum dated December 20, 1985, to Personnel Officers and Insurance Coordinators requesting that they attempt to retrieve prescription drug cards from employees who terminated their participation in the State Plan after November 1, 1985. No one retrieved the Petitioner's card. After receiving his card, the Petitioner spoke to the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where the Petitioner worked for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petitioner asked the business manager whether he could use the card and was told that he did not know but would find out. The business manager later told the Petitioner that he had talked to the district personnel office and been told that the Petitioner could use the card. On February 26, 1986, and February 27, 1986, the Petitioner used the prescription drug card to purchase prescription drugs in south Florida. The Petitioner talked with a physician at Capital Health Plan by telephone before purchasing the medications and was authorized to receive treatment by other than a Capital Health Plan physician. The State was billed $5.82 for the medications purchased with the card on February 21, 1986 and February 26, 1986. On March 1, 1986, the Petitioner again used the card to purchase medications. The card was used in Tallahassee, Florida. The State was billed $63.95 ($55.43 and $8.52) for the medications purchased with the card on March 1, 1986. The Petitioner did not use the card on any other occasion. The Petitioner testified that he did not use the card because he discovered that it was less costly to acquire the medications he needed from Capital Health Plan. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, however, the cost to the Petitioner was the same whether he used the plastic card or Capital Health Plan's pharmacy: $3.00. On or about March 27, 1986 and April 10, 1986, the Petitioner was informed that he had used the card to obtain medications for which use of the card was not authorized. The Petitioner was requested to return the card and to repay the amount incurred for the medications. The Petitioner did not respond to these requests. On August 26, 1986, the Petitioner was sent a letter requesting that he repay the cost of the medications he had acquired with the card. Although the Petitioner was requested to remit $77.02, the evidence only proved that $69.77 of medication was paid for by the State. On August 28, 1986, the Petitioner returned the prescription drug card he had been given to Andrew Lewis, an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner has not reimbursed the State for the cost of the medication he received. The $69.77 of medications paid for by the Respondent which the Petitioner acquired with the prescription drug card provided to him by the Respondent represents a payment on behalf of the Petitioner which he was not entitled to. The card was for use by state employees participating in the State Plan. As of December 1, 1985, the Petitioner was not a participant in this plan. When considered together, the information provided to the Petitioner should have put the Petitioner on notice as to the type of medical insurance coverage he was generally entitled to receive. In particular, the Petitioner should have known that he was eligible for coverage under the Capital Health Plan, an HMO, and that he was not entitled to coverage under the State Plan as of December 1, 1985. The Petitioner also should have known that the prescription drug card he received was for use of participants by the State Plan only and not participants of the Capital Health Plan. The Petitioner's reliance on the statements of the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where he worked was not reasonable in light of the other information which he had been provided about his coverage and the purpose of the prescription drug card he was sent. The Petitioner is not able to repay the $69.77 owed to the State in a lump sum. The Petitioner can only pay the $69.77 to the Respondent in monthly installments of $10.00 or less.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner pay $69.77 to the Respondent for prescription drugs received by the Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4111 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reasons for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 Although the Petitioner did not inten- ionally use the prescription card despite being informed that he was not entitled to it, he should have known that he was not entitled to use it. 2 RO 31. 3 RO 21. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. In light of the information provided to the Petitioner concerning the differences between the State Plan and an HMO, the Petitioner did not use due care to determine if the card was a part of the benefits he was entitled to receive as a participant in an HMO. 5 RO 25. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Walker testified that the coverage available to state employees is not confusing. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. RO 1. 2. RO 2. 3. RO 3-4 and 13-14. 4. RO 15, 18, 21 and 24. 5. RO 21 and 26. 6. RO 27. 7. RO 10. 8. RO 29. 9. RO 30. 10. RO 31. 11. COPIES FURNISHED: RO 36. Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 S. Philip Ford Post Office Box 20232 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resigned from State Government on July 23, 1987. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was covered under the Florida State Group Health Insurance Plan. His wife, who is a diabetic, was also covered under Petitioner's insurance. Upon termination Petitioner was eligible for continuation of coverage benefits under the federal COBRA Act. However, prior to receiving any notice of his COBRA rights, Petitioner elected to continue his State Employees' Insurance for two months from July 1, 1987 and then begin coverage under his new employer's insurance plan. 2/ Petitioner made advance payment on the 2 months additional coverage. The payments carried his State Employees' health insurance through September 1, 1987 when it was terminated. DOA notified Petitioner on August 27, 1987, of his right to elect continuation of coverage under the COBRA Act. This notice complied with the notice requirements under the COBRA Act. COBRA provides continued health insurance coverage for up to (18) months, after a covered employee leaves employment. However, coverage does not continue beyond the time the employee is covered under another group health plan. COBRA simply fills the gap between two different employers group health insurance plans so that an employee's group health insurance does not lapse while the employee changes jobs. Petitioner's new employer's health coverage began around September 1, 1987. After Petitioner had begun coverage under his new insurance plan, he discovered that his wife's preexisting diabetic condition would not be covered. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner, within 60 days of September 1, 1987 requested the Division of State Employee's Insurance to continue his insurance coverage pursuant to COBRA. Moreover, Petitioner's COBRA rights terminated when he began his coverage under his new employer's health plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for continuation of coverage under COBRA. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of April, 1989.
