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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's insurance Policy Form No. SL-94.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted Policy Form No. SL-94 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy") to Respondent for approval as a stop loss policy pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, on or about August 15, 1995. The Policy, standing alone, meets all applicable requirements for approval as a stop loss policy under Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The Policy obligates Petitioner to pay benefits to an employer, or the trust established by or for the employer, which employer is responsible for the payment of benefits to its employees or their dependents under a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan (hereinafter referred to as "the Plan") qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). The Policy purports to provide insurance only to the employer. On its face, the Policy does not assume any of the employer's obligations under the Plan to provide insurance directly to the employer's employees. Under the Policy, Petitioner is obligated to reimburse the employer only after the employer pays a limited amount of benefits under the Plan to any person who is covered under the Plan, i.e. employees or their dependents. The amount of Plan benefits that an employer must pay before Petitioner is obligated to begin reimbursement is determined by specific and aggregate attachment points or deductibles as defined in the Policy's Schedule of Insurance. The specific attachment point is the Plan benefit amount which is wholly retained by the employer for all claims incurred by each covered person during each contract year. The Plan benefit amount does not include deductibles, coinsurance amounts or any other expense or claims which are not reimbursable under the terms of the Plan nor does it include expenses which are reimbursable from any other source. The aggregate attachment point or deductible is the Plan benefit amount which is wholly retained by the employer for all covered persons during a contract year. The Policy's Schedule of Insurance does not specify what the specific and aggregate attachment points will be. However, record evidence indicates that Petitioner intends to market the policy with a specific attachment point as low as $500. Therefore, if the Plan has a deductible of $250 and the Policy has a specific attachment point of $500, the employee would pay the first $250 of eligible expenses, the employer would pay the next $500 of eligible expenses, and Petitioner would reimburse the employer for 100 percent of any excess eligible expenses, for each covered person during a contract year. The Policy's eligible expenses are the covered charges or expenses which are incurred by a covered person while covered under the Plan in the course of treatment for an injury or illness and paid under the Plan subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of the Plan document. In other words, the eligible expenses under the Policy will mirror the eligible expenses of the Plan. Record evidence indicates that Petitioner intends to market the Policy to employers with less than fifty (50) employees. The Policy does not contain provisions related to the following protections: guaranteed availability for any small group employer regardless of whether its employees are sick or have preexisting conditions; guaranteed renewability unless the policyholder fails to pay the premium or commits fraud; limitations on exclusions for pre- existing conditions; portability which allows employees to move from one employer to another regard- less of preexisting conditions; community rated premiums; and, periods of open enrollment. ERISA self-funded benefit plans are not regulated by the state regardless of their terms and conditions. They are not required to include the above referenced protections. If the Plan excludes specific health risks or preexisting conditions such as AIDS, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, neither the employer nor the Petitioner would be obligated to pay benefits for those risks. Additionally, the Plan is subject to whatever deductible limits the small employer wishes to set. Respondent disapproved the Policy by letter dated August 21, 1995. Respondent correctly rejected the Policy as being inappropriate for the small group health insurance market. The Policy is inappropriate because Petitioner intends to market it to self-insured small group employers with attachment points so low ($500) that it becomes a de facto health insurance policy instead of a stop loss policy. Respondent would not approve a stop loss policy for a small group employer's Plan with specific attachment points at $5,000 or less. Respondent would approve a stop loss policy for a small group employer's Plan with specific attachment points as low as $9,000 or $10,000, regardless of the terms and conditions of that Plan. In that instance, the employer assumes significant risk of loss as a self-funded insurer and the stop loss policy operates to limit that loss. However, an ERISA benefit plan combined with a stop loss policy having specific attachment points as low as $500, such as the one at issue here, substantially limits the self-insured employer's risk of loss to a nominal amount and substitutes Petitioner as a small group health insurer with none of the protections required by Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order disapproving Petitioner's Policy Form No. SL-94, for use in Florida's small group health insurance market. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1996. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Reject the first sentence as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Second sentence accepted as restated in Conclusions of Law 19-21 and 26-27. Rejected. It is a question of fact whether the Policy is a stop loss policy or a health insurance policy regardless of its denomination. Specifically reject Petitioner's finding that the Policy does not violate public policy as expressed in Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes. See Conclusions of Law 24-27. Accepted in Conclusion of Law 23. Accepted in part as restated in Findings of Fact 15-16. See also Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law and legal argument which is not persuasive as applied to the facts of this case. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. First sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Next five sentences are not findings of fact. Specifically reject any implication that the Policy is a stop loss policy. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. First two sentences are not findings of fact. Reject any implication that there is no public policy "relating to the issuance of a stop loss policy in the State of Florida to a Florida employer employing 50 or fewer employees." Accept that the state does not regulate employer self-funded medical benefit programs. See Finding of Fact 12. Accept the last sentence as restated in Finding of Fact 15 and Conclusion of Law 24. Rejected. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the legislature was aware that "the bill could increase the likelihood that an employer would choose to self- insure and due to ERISA would be able to avoid state regulation of the insurance product provided to employees." However, the referenced exhibit is rejected as evidence of legislative intent to exclude "related insurance products" from "the statute's regulatory or public policy purview." Rejected for the reasons set forth in the ruling above. Rejected. See Conclusions of Law 24. Substance accepted as restated in Findings of Facts 12 and Conclusions of Law 24. Substance accepted as restated in Findings of Facts 16. First sentence not a finding of fact. Second sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence; See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. Accept in part as restated in Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. A recitation of the testimony is not a finding of fact; substance accepted as restated in Finding of Fact 16. Accept that the state has no specific statutes or rules regulating attachment points in stop loss insurance policies. See Conclusions of Law 19. However, Section 627.6699(2), Florida Statutes, is applicable here because the Policy is a de facto health insurance policy. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. First sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 19. First sentence rejected; More like a conclusion of law or legal argument the substance of which is not persuasive. Second sentence irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. NAIC's stop loss model act supports the proposition that the Policy is not a stop loss insurance policy but rather a health insurance policy. Accepted in part as restated in Conclusions of Law 19. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Not a finding of fact. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 11, 15-16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10, 15-16, and Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4-8 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and Conclusions of Law 22. Accept that the Policy provides for a specific attachment point of not less than $500; See Findings of Fact 8, 15 and 16. There is no evidence that the Policy's specific attachment point can be no more than $1,000. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 5-8. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted as restated in Conclusions of Law 22. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 9, 11-13 and Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 9-13. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 14. Reject that Petitioner could totally avoid the coverage responsibilities otherwise imposed by Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes, merely by setting the Policy's attachment points at the same level as the deductible in the Plan. If the Plan's deductible was $500 and the Policy's specific attachment point was $500, the employee would pay the first $500 of expenses, the employer would be responsible for the next $500 of expenses, and Petitioner would reimburse the employer for 100 percent of any excess eligible expenses for that employee during the contract year. However, Petitioner can totally avoid paying for state mandated protections because the Policy will mirror any prohibited exclusions or provisions in the Plan. Substance accepted in part; See Findings of Fact 15-16. There is no evidence that the Policy's specific attachment point can be as high as $2,000. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 16; See Conclusions of Law 24-27. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Frank J. Santry, Esquire Granger, Santry, et al. Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether petitioner owes respondent premiums on account of insurance coverage (Family I) under the State Employees Group Health Insurance Program from March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981? If so, whether petitioner is obligated to pay the underpayment as a condition of continued insurance coverage?
Findings Of Fact Until December 6, 1978, petitioner, who has worked as a forest ranger for Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services since 1967 or 1968, was married to Betty R. Brogdon, the mother of his two children. Betty Brogdon was employed by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the time of the dissolution of her marriage to petitioner. A provision of the dissolution decree required petitioner to maintain health insurance in effect for the children. During the marriage, in April of 1978, petitioner applied for, and received Family I insurance in the Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, continuing the coverage under a predecessor policy. Petitioner paid a premium for the Family I coverage reduced by certain employer contributions, after formally bringing to his supervisor's attention the fact that Betty R. Brogdon was also a state employee, and signing forms to that effect. Before August 1, 1979, the employer contributed 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage for each employee. From August 1, 1979, until August 1, 1980, the employer contributed, in addition, 25 percent of the family premium. On and after August 1, 1980, the employer contribution for each employee increased to 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage plus 50 percent of the family premium. Since this amount exceeds the total premium for Family I, families with this coverage in which both spouses work for state government have paid no insurance premium for Family I coverage since April 1, 1980. After the marriage ended, Betty Brogdon applied, on February 6, 1979, for Individual I health insurance, by submitting a form through the personnel office at the Sunland Center in Marianna, where she was employed. Since she had been a beneficiary under the family policy that her husband kept in force while they were married, her application reflected no change in that policy. When it reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration, it was indistinguishable from any other new application by an employee who had not signed up when beginning work. After medical approval on May 7, 1979, she received Individual I coverage for herself only. Petitioner works with four other forest rangers and a supervisor at a site seven miles west of Marianna. There is no "personnel technician" stationed there and none visits. He told his supervisor of the divorce and, on March 2, 1979, filled out a "personnel action request" form furnished by a district office of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Bonifay, Florida, indicating "[m]arital and dependent change," which reached the Director of the Division of Forestry on March 9, 1979. Like other forms of its kind, this form never reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration. The Bureau of Insurance did receive, however, on August 13, 1981, a "change of information" form reporting the Brogdons' dissolution of marriage on December 6, 1978. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Effective the following month, on advice of the Bureau of Insurance, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services subtracted from petitioner's paychecks the same insurance premium other employees not married to state employees paid for Family I coverage. The Bureau of Insurance lacks authority to make such deductions itself. Between March of 1980 and December 31, 1982, the only claims submitted under the policy were for petitioner himself. But for the $100.00 deductible, these claims were paid. The difference between what a state employee married to another state employee paid for Family I insurance coverage between July 1, 1979, and August 31, 1981, and what a state employee not married to another state employee paid for the same coverage amounts to $864.42.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent direct petitioner to pay the sum of eight hundred sixty-four dollars and forty two cents ($864.42) within ninety (90) days of entry of final order. If petitioner fails to make timely payment, that respondent cancel his Family I State Employees Group Health Insurance Program policy. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether 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 The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's health care expenses for a condition diagnosed on August 26, 1992, should be covered under his state employees' group health insurance, or whether coverage for the diagnosis should be denied under the pre-existing conditions limitation of the plan.
Findings Of Fact Before being hired by the University of South Florida (USF), St. Petersburg campus, to start August 1, 1992, the Petitioner taught college in Georgia. At his college in Georgia, the Petitioner was insured under a private employee group health insurance policy and had the option, under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), to maintain coverage under that insurance. The Petitioner visited his new campus on or about May 22 and June 28, 1992. While there in June, he filled out various personnel forms required in advance of his start date. Possibly because the chief USF personnel officer at the St. Petersburg campus was on vacation, he was not told about the available state employees' group health care plans or the requirement that, if he wanted to enroll in one before the next open enrollment period, he had to select one of within 31 days of his starting employment date. The Petitioner started work, as scheduled, on August 1, 1992. He first pay check was dated August 21, 1992, and covered the two-week pay period from July 28 through August 13, 1992. There were no deductions from the Petitioner's pay for health insurance, as he had not enrolled in any state employees' group health plan. On August 20-21, 1992, the Petitioner participated in a new faculty orientation program during which he became aware of the state employees' group health care plans and the requirement that he enroll within 31 days of beginning employment if he wanted to enroll in one before the next open enrollment period. Before taking any steps to enroll in any of the state employees' group health care options, the Petitioner took ill on or about August 24, 1993. His symptoms were new to him and included chest pain and rapid heart rate. The next day, August 25, 1992, he went to see the chief personnel officer at USF, St. Petersburg, to discuss his options and enroll in one of them. (At least by this time, he had available for his review an informational brochure summarizing the state employees' group health insurance plan.) He chose the state employees' group health insurance plan and enrolled. The personnel officer filled out the enrollment forms for coverage to begin September 1, 1993. In order to obtain a September 1st effective date of coverage, it was necessary to "triple deduct" employee contributions towards the insurance premiums in the Petitioner's next pay check so that the premium for coverage in September would be paid. (Normal deductions out of September's pay checks would go to pay the premiums for coverage in October, 1992.) The Petitioner discussed with the personnel officer whether it was possible to get an earlier effective date by paying the first month's premium by personal check. The personnel officer advised him that USF does not accept personal checks for this purpose and that, in any event, no effective date earlier than September 1, 1992, could be obtained in this way. The next day, August 26, 1992, the Petitioner went to see a physician who was on the state employees' group health insurance preferred provider plan for diagnosis and treatment of his condition. Not surprisingly, since the Petitioner had submitted his enrollment forms through his personnel office only the day before, the physician was unable to verify coverage, and the Petitioner paid the fees for services out-of-pocket. He anticipated that he would be reimbursed by his new insurance, or that his out-of-pocket expenditures would serve to fulfill, in whole or in part, the deductibles under his new insurance. On or about September 2, 1992, the Petitioner returned to his physician for additional health care services in connection with his condition. (Ultimately, it was determined that the Petitioner suffered from mitral valve prolapse and supraventricular tachycardia that was successfully treated with beta blocker therapy.) The physician's office still could not verify insurance coverage, and the Petitioner again paid the fee for services in cash. The Petitioner discussed the situation with the USF, St. Petersburg, chief personnel officer, and they decided that the information concerning the Petitioner's enrollment had not been entered in the computer system yet. Later in September, 1992, the Petitioner again returned to his physician for additional health care services in connection with his condition. The physician's office still could not verify insurance coverage. At the very end of September, the Petitioner received an explanation of benefits (EOB) from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), the plan administrator, indicating that the Petitioner's contract of insurance could not be located. The Petitioner again went to discuss the matter with the USF, St. Petersburg, chief personnel officer. She sent DSEI a memorandum, with the Petitioner's enrollment form attached, asking for verification that the Petitioner's coverage was in effect. Meanwhile, the Petitioner decided to postpone further health care services until he received a response from DSEI. Later in October, 1992, the Petitioner was advised by his physician's office that verification of the Petitioner's coverage had been received. The Petitioner returned to the physician's office for additional health care services in connection with his condition on or about October 9 and 19, 1992. At approximately the end of October, 1992, the Petitioner received an EOB form from BCBS, dated October 25, 1992, advising the Petitioner and his physician that BCBS needed and was awaiting verification, in the form of office records and the history and physical, of the condition for which the Petitioner was treated. On or about October 30, 1992, the Petitioner scheduled an appointment with the USF, St. Petersburg, chief personnel officer to discuss the Petitioner's insurance options. Open enrollment closed the next day, and the Petitioner had to decide whether to keep his coverage or switch to a health maintenance organization, or seek coverage under his wife's employee group insurance coverage and possibly drop his own insurance. He chose to keep his state employees' group health insurance. In early November, 1992, the Petitioner received another EOB form from BCBS, dated November 4, 1992, advising the Petitioner and his physician that BCBS still was waiting for additional information from the Petitioner's physician's office in connection with the services provided on September 2, 1992. At the end of December, 1992, the Petitioner received a statement from his physician's office indicating that DSEI was denying all of the Petitioner's claims as "pre-existing." In pertinent part, the state employees' group health insurance plan lists under its "limitations": For any accident or illness for which an insured received diagnostic treatment or received services within three-hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days prior to the effective date of coverage, no payment will be allowed for services related to such accident or illness which is received during the three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days subsequent to the effective date of coverage; however, covered services related to such accident or illness which are received after three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days of coverage are covered by the Plan. A verbatim reproduction of this limitation is included in the informational brochure which the Petitioner was provided and reviewed no later than August 25, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a final order denying the Petitioner's claims. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1993, 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 24th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3729 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Legal Argument 1 Understanding Accepted as to the earlier treatment, and incorporated; rejected as to the later treatment. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the facts found. (Both the "turn-around" and the insurance card provided this information. It also could have been verified by DSEI on telephone or written request.) Accepted and incorporated. Accepted that the information was disseminated, but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected that DSEI "discounted" it. Rejected that the provider "paid partial claims." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Once basic coverage was verified, the provider processed the claims, but the provider made no determination as to the pre-existing conditions limitation, nor did the provider have any authority to do so.) Rejected as not proven that none of the information was "available to new employees." (Some is distributed to new employees, and some is available in personnel offices upon request.) Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. (It was not proven and was not found that the triple deduction occurred during the first two weeks of August. She may have meant to say September.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The term "performance date" is ambiguous.) Consideration 1.-2. Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. (Enrollment was effective September 1, 1992, as requested by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was unable to verify the enrollment date until October, 1992. The Petitioner got coverage effective September 1, 1992, subject to the plan's pre-existing conditions limitation (among others), a concept the Petitioner never fully understood. Performance Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. See above. Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. (The first claims were paid in cash, to be applied to the deductible. The EOB dated October 25, 1992, first raised the question of the pre-existing conditions limitation by requesting verification of the condition being treated on September 18, 1992.) Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The provider is not authorized to approve claims and was assuming coverage without considering the pre-existing conditions limitation.) Accepted (for a September 1, 1992, effective date) and incorporated. Legal Argument 2 (The Petitioner's argument, that the DSEI defense is "mute," falls on deaf ears.) 1.-2. Rejected as not proven. (The typed form was not placed in evidence.) Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (The typed form was not placed in evidence.) Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, ambiguous, subordinate and unnecessary. Legal Argument 3 Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. See above. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. (The provider has no authority to determine claims and obviously, like the Petitioner, did not have a full comprehension of the pre-existing conditions limitation in the state plan.) Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Cumulative. See above. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. As to a.), USF policies interfered with the operation of the insurance program in that respect; as to b.), cumulative. Cumulative. See above. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (The start date was August 1, 1992.) 2.-7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William Steve Lang 2233 Willowbrook Drive Clearwater, Florida 34624 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4876 William Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
