The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the State of Florida's group health insurance plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Judy Stahl began her employment with the State of Florida as a public assistance specialist with the Department of Children and Families on October 4, 1991. She began participating in the State's group health insurance program on December 1, 1991. Petitioner voluntarily terminated her employment by the State on November 28, 2002, for personal reasons. In her letter of resignation she stated that it was her intention to again seek employment with the State after the personal situation which caused her to resign was concluded. Premiums for the State's group health insurance are paid one month in advance. Therefore, Petitioner's coverage under the State's group health insurance program continued through the end of December 2002. In January 2003, the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner of her right to elect continuation coverage under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and the federal Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Petitioner so elected and continued her participation in the State's group health insurance under COBRA for the maximum period of 18 months that was available to her. Her continuation coverage expired June 30, 2004. In May 2004 the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner that her continuation coverage would soon expire and further advised her of her right to convert her insurance coverage to a private, individual policy. Petitioner exercised her option to convert to a private policy, effective July 1, 2004. In March 2005 the Florida Division of Retirement sent Petitioner an Estimate of Retirement Benefits. The Estimate contained the comment that: "As a result of a review of accounts for terminated members, it was determined that you are eligible for retirement benefits." The Estimate form was accompanied by a pamphlet explaining the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan. It was also accompanied by information on the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health plan. The retirement pamphlet included the information that health insurance was available to retirees; however, the health insurance information advised that health insurance was only available to certain retirees. Petitioner concluded that if she retired, she could obtain cheaper health insurance from the State than from her private provider. This was the first time that Petitioner considered the possibility of retirement. Petitioner thereafter made many telephone calls to the Department of Children and Families, to the Division of Retirement, to the Division of State Group Insurance, and to People First, inquiring about retirement and insurance. These telephone inquiries were the first time she mentioned to any State employee or representative that she was interested in retiring. At the end of March 2005 she made the decision to retire and submitted her application for retirement benefits. Her effective retirement date was April 1, 2005. At the time Petitioner filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in the State's group health insurance program. At the time she filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in continuation coverage pursuant to COBRA. She was insured under a private policy. At the time of her initial enrollment in the State group health insurance program, Petitioner signed a new enrollee form that, inter alia, advised her that eligibility and enrollment were governed by the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 22K-l. During her employment she also enrolled in supplemental dental insurance. That enrollment application form notified Petitioner that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the federal Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. Throughout her employment and at the time that she terminated her employment, she completed Annual Benefits Open Enrollment forms, which also notified her that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. While employed by the Department of Children and Families, Petitioner was provided with copies of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document. Those booklets describe eligibility for participation to include employees, certain retirees, and COBRA participants. They also describe termination of coverage due to termination of employment and describe continuation coverage and conversion coverage. At the time Petitioner retired, she was not a State employee; she was a former State employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner is not eligible to participate in the State's group health insurance program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Berkowitz, Esquire Mark J. Berkowitz, P.A. 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Tom Lewis, Jr., Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Administration, enter a Final Order that Petitioner, Marvin Brownlee, is owed a total of $158.56 under the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Insurance Program consisting of $126.08 of expenditures previously conceded to be eligible coverage but not yet paid, plus $32.48 of expenditures for bed underpads or chucks determined after final hearing to be covered. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-0806 Rulings On Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. No items before the effective date of the State's self-insurance program, May 1, 1978, were found to be covered. Covered by Findings 2 through 6. Rulings On Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1-2. Covered by Finding 1. Covered by Finding 7. 4-6. To the extent necessary and relevant, covered by Findings 8 through 11. Rejected as not supported by the totality of the evidence; covered by Findings 2 through 6. Covered by Finding 6. Covered by Findings 3 through 6. Covered by Findings 2 and 5. Second sentence specifically rejected as not supported by the totality of the evidence. As found, the specific use of the underpads is to catch and absorb Brownlee's excrement. But they are part of an overall method for control of Brownlee's bowels and, as such, aid in his physical well-being. See Conclusion 3. Rejected. First, it is unnecessary to recite the agency's preliminary decision. Second, there was no evidence of the qualifications of the persons determining that the underpads are not "medically necessary." Third, the determination is not supported by the totality of the evidence. See Findings 2 and 5. (The part on prescription drugs is covered by Findings 3 through 6 and 10.) COPIES FURNISHED: Marvin Brownlee Route 3, Box 581 Havana, Florida 32333 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as an insurance agent in the State of Florida licensed to sell health insurance. At all times material hereto, Respondent was not formally affiliated with Cleveland Insurance Agency. However, Cleveland Insurance Agency often referred clients to Respondent for health and Medicare supplement policies because Cleveland Insurance Agency did not handle those type policies. Prior to November 1987, Respondent, working in conjunction with Cleveland Insurance Company, sold to Irene Goldberg a health insurance policy issued through Provider's Fidelity Insurance Company (Provider's Fidelity). On November 29, 1987, Ms. Goldberg paid $1,504.56 as the annual renewal premium for this health insurance policy which extended her coverage through December 4, 1988. In March of 1988, Ms. Goldberg contacted Cleveland Insurance Agency and requested that someone review her health insurance coverage. Cleveland Insurance Agency referred Ms. Goldberg's request to Respondent. Respondent was familiar with the terms and conditions of the health insurance coverage Ms. Goldberg had in place and he knew that she had paid the premium for this policy through December 1988. Upon visiting with Irene Goldberg on or about March 10, 1988, Respondent presented Ms. Goldberg with a business card that intentionally misrepresented his status with Cleveland Insurance Company. Because Ms. Goldberg had placed most of her insurance needs through Cleveland Insurance Agency during the past few years, Respondent intentionally misled Ms. Goldberg into thinking that he was formally affiliated with Cleveland Insurance Agency. During that visit, Respondent recommended to Ms. Goldberg that she purchase a policy of insurance issued by First National Life Insurance Company (First National) to replace her Provider's Fidelity policy. Ms. Goldberg specifically discussed with Respondent a preexisting medical condition which required periodic medical treatment and the need for the treatment required by this condition to be covered by the new policy. Respondent assured Ms. Goldberg that the preexisting condition would be covered by the new policy. Respondent also told Ms. Goldberg that he would cancel the Provider's Fidelity policy and that he would secure on her behalf a pro rated refund of the premium she had paid to Provider's Fidelity. Based on Respondent's representations, Ms. Goldberg agreed to purchase the First National policy. On March 30, 1988, Ms. Goldberg gave to Respondent a check made payable to First National Life Insurance Company in the amount of $1,892.00, the amount Respondent had quoted as the full annual premium. A few days later, Respondent contacted Ms. Goldberg and advised her that there would be an additional premium in the amount of $1,360.00, which Ms. Goldberg paid on April 4, 1988. This additional premium was, according to Respondent, for skilled nursing care coverage which First National had added as a mandatory feature of the policy Ms. Goldberg had purchased. The skilled nursing care coverage was, in fact, a separate policy which was not a mandatory feature of the policy Ms. Goldberg thought she was purchasing from First National. Respondent misled Ms. Goldberg as to the terms of the policies he had sold her and as to the number of policies he had sold her. Respondent represented that the premiums he had collected on behalf of First National were in payment of a single health insurance policy. Respondent had sold Ms. Goldberg four separate policies, and he collected a commission for each of the policies. When Ms. Goldberg received her insurance documents from First National, she learned for the first time that Respondent had sold her four separate policies of insurance, including a cancer policy that she and Respondent had never discussed. In addition to the health and cancer policies, Respondent sold Ms. Goldberg a home convalescent care policy and a separate skilled nursing care policy. Respondent had sold Ms. Goldberg policies of insurance that Ms. Goldberg had not requested and that she did not know she was buying. Upon reading the health policy, Ms. Goldberg discovered that her new First National Life policy excluded her preexisting condition. Ms. Goldberg contacted Respondent who told her that he had not cancelled the Provider's Fidelity policy as he had agreed to do and that he had not tried to get the pro rated refund of the Provider's Fidelity premium. Respondent told her that any claim she might have for the preexisting condition should be filed under the Provider's Fidelity policy. Ms. Goldberg then complained to First National which, after an investigation, refunded to Ms. Goldberg the premiums she had paid for the three policies. Respondent had received a commission on the policies of insurance he had sold to Ms. Goldberg. As of the time of the hearing, Respondent had not reimbursed First National for the commission he had received based on the premiums that were subsequently refunded to Ms. Goldberg. In February 1988, Respondent met with Helen Krafft to discuss her health insurance needs. During the course of the meeting, Respondent presented to Ms. Krafft a business card which intentionally misrepresented his affiliation with Cleveland Insurance Agency. This business card misled Ms. Krafft into believing that Respondent was formally affiliated with Cleveland Insurance Agency. On February 18, 1988, Respondent sold to Ms. Krafft a health insurance policy through First National and a health insurance policy issued through American Sun Life, at which time he collected a premiums in the total amount of $519.80 for six months of coverage from each of the two policies. In July 1988, Respondent visited with Ms. Krafft at her place of work and told her that she should pay her renewal premiums for the health insurance policies on or before August 1, 1988, to avoid a premium increases. Respondent knew, or should have known, that there were no premium increases scheduled for those policies and that there were no discounts for early payment of the premiums The renewal premiums Respondent quoted Ms. Krafft for the two policies totaled $485.40. At Respondent's instructions Ms. Krafft delivered to Respondent her signed check dated July 18, 1988, in the amount of $485.40 with the payee's name left blank. Respondent accepted these trust funds from Ms. Krafft in a fiduciary capacity. Instead of using these funds to pay the premiums as he had agreed to do, Respondent filled his name in on Ms. Krafft's check and cashed it. Ms. Krafft learned that Respondent had not used the funds she had given him to renew her two policies when she started getting late payment notices from the two insurance companies with accompanying threats of cancellation if the premiums were not paid. In late September 1988, Respondent paid to Ms. Krafft the sum of $485.40 in cash. In June of 1988, Steven R. and Marilyn Hill applied, through Respondent, for a health policy with First National. The Hills paid the initial premium of $304.37 by check made payable to First National on June 26, 1988. Because of underwriting considerations, First National informed Respondent that the Hills would have to pay a higher premium to obtain the insurance they wanted. The Hills were not willing to pay the higher premium and requested a refund of the amount they had paid. First National made the refund check payable to Steven Hill and mailed the check to Respondent. There was no competent, substantial evidence as to what happened to the check other than First National Life stopped payment on the check and it never cleared banking channels. A second refund check was later delivered to Steven Hill. First National contended at the hearing that Respondent had accrued a debit balance in the amount of $2,692.45 as a result of his dealings as an agent of the company. Respondent contended that he is entitled to certain offsets against the amount First National claims it is owed based on commissions he contends that he had earned but had not been paid. First National had not, prior to the hearing, submitted to Respondent any type of accounting of sums due, nor had it explicitly demanded any specific sum from Respondent. Instead, First National had made a blanket demand that Respondent return all materials belonging to First National and advised that future commission checks would be held in escrow. From the evidence presented it could not be determined that Respondent was indebted to First National.
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 which finds that Respondent committed the multiple violations of the Florida Insurance Code as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order and which further revokes all licenses issued by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer to Respondent, John Richard Klee. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3269 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected in part as being a conclusion of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. 10 are adopted in material part 11 are adopted in material part 12 are adopted in material part 13 are adopted in material part 14 are adopted in material part 15 are adopted in material part 16 are adopted in material part 17 are adopted in material part 18 are adopted in material part 19 are adopted in material part 20 are adopted in material part 21 are adopted in material part 22 are adopted in material part 23 are adopted in material part 24 are adopted in material part 25 are rejected as being The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 2 and 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 26 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 27 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 28 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 29 are adopted in material part by paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 30 are adopted in material part by paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy H. Schmidt, Esquire Office of the Treasurer Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee Florida 32399-0300 Greg Ross, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Don Dowdell General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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 timely notified Respondent, Division of State Group Insurance of a "qualifying status change" (QSC) event, so as to allow Petitioner to cancel her participation in the State Group Health Insurance Program during the Plan Year- 2006. Petitioner seeks a refund of amounts deducted/paid because her insurance was continued.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a covered participant in the Program, authorized by Section 110.123, Florida Statutes, at all times material. As provided in Section 110.123(3)(c), Florida Statutes, Respondent DMS, through its administrative entity, DSGI, is responsible for contract management and day-to-day administration of the Program. DMS has contracted with Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services including assisting in the administration of the Program. Convergys performs these tasks in part through an on-line system known as "People First." However, as provided in Section 110.123(5), Florida Statutes, final decisions concerning the existence of coverage or covered benefits under the Program are not delegated, or deemed to have been delegated, by DMS. Section 110.161, Florida Statutes, requires DSGI, as the responsible administrative entity, to administer the Program consistent with Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code, so that participants will obtain the pre-tax advantages provided by Section 125. One of the federal requirements to maintain the pre-tax status is that the plan's sponsor (e.g., the State of Florida) administer the plans and apply each plan's rules in a manner that does not discriminate and that treats all participants equally. In this case, Petitioner was enrolled in the Health Program Plan Year 2006, i.e. from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Allowing a Plan member to retroactively cancel her participation during a Plan Year without having properly reported a QSC could put the entire pre-tax program in jeopardy. A QSC is a change in status as listed in the Plan which would allow an employee to cancel or otherwise change participation in the Plan during the Plan Year if requested by the employee within 31 days of the change in status. Converting from full-time to part-time state employment is a QSC event. On April 21, 2006, Petitioner converted from full-time employee status to part-time employee status. Therefore, the QSC event in this case occurred on April 21, 2006, when Petitioner went from being a full-time to a part-time employee. However, in order to effect a change in health insurance coverage, Petitioner was required to request a change in health insurance coverage no later than May 22, 2006. To request a change in health insurance coverage, Petitioner would have needed to contact Convergys in a timely manner, i.e. within 31 days of April 21, 2006. For People First, Convergys maintains a tracking system known as "Siebel," which tracks written correspondence to or from state employees and notes telephone calls between state employees and Convergys associates. Standard business procedure for Convergys is that the telephone logs are not verbatim notations of the conversations, but are a summary of those conversations, including a description of the reason for the call and the action taken by any Convergys associate that took the call. The Convergys policy is that all calls are to be notated. All service associates are trained to note all calls. Convergys employees are trained to make the call notes during the telephone conversation or soon thereafter. A notation is to be made by the Convergys employee in the Siebel system, and a case is opened when the service representative cannot assist the caller or when further action is required. The case notes are also to be recorded in the system. None of the People First, DGS/DGSI, or Convergys records reflect any contact by Petitioner within the 31 days following April 21, 2006, although they reflect several later contacts concerning her complaint that her coverage was not timely cancelled. Petitioner testified that she used her sister's cell phone to telephone People First "after two or three weeks" and that she discussed cancellation of her participation in the state insurance program and flirted with the Black male who answered the phone, but who seemed not to have much experience in the cancellation process. Petitioner was not able to provide the name or position of the person with whom she allegedly spoke or the date or time of her telephone call. The fact that Petitioner testified that she knew that she "had to around the middle or so" of the month to request her change of coverage, illustrates Petitioner's rather loose interpretation of when this alleged call occurred. Petitioner presented no witness or documentation to corroborate her testimony that she had received oral assurances during that phone call to the effect that the change she requested had been completed through People First. Petitioner's representation that the telephone company could not get the phone records of this telephone call due to the passage of time is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order ratifying its October 13, 2006, denial of Petitioner's requested retroactive cancellation of enrollment in the State Group Health Insurance Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ericka L. Ledbetter 739 South Shelfer Stree Quincy, Florida 32351 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John J. Matthews, Director Department of Management Services Division of State Group Insurance 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0949
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 Petitioner is entitled to a refund from the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan of pre-tax supplemental insurance premiums in the amount of $47.46 or $47.45 a month that were deducted from his pay for the 2007 and 2008 insurance plan years.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Detrick Murray ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Murray") was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, employed by the Florida Department of Corrections. As a state employee, he was given the option to participate in a pre-tax supplemental accident/disability insurance plan. Benefits, including insurance plans, are administered by a private contractor, Convergys, through a project called "People First," operated on behalf of Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance ("Respondent or the Division"). During the 2005 open enrollment period for the 2006 plan year, Mr. Murray elected to participate in a state- sponsored supplemental/accidental policy offered by Colonial Insurance Company ("Colonial"). The reverse side of the enrollment provided the following information and instructions: The enrollment form must be used to enroll in or change coverages. No changes will be accepted by e-mail or letter. Enrolling in a supplemental insurance plan, or changing options, does not automatically stop other coverages you currently have. To stop an existing coverage, you must place an "S" in the box provided for that Plan on the front of this form (Part 1). Only complete Part 2 on the front of this form if you wish to stop plans currently not offered. The Supplemental Enrollment Form must be submitted to the People First Service Center. Enrollment changes will not occur if forms and/or applications and the Supplemental Company Application are submitted directly to the supplemental insurance company. If you cancel or do not enroll in supplemental insurance, you will not be able to enroll again until the next annual open enrollment period, unless you experience a Qualifying Status Change. Supplemental premiums are deducted on a pre- tax basis. It is your responsibility to ensure that your enrollment selections are in effect. Check your payroll warrants to ensure that your deductions properly reflect your selections. Contact the People First Service Center immediately if these deductions are not correct. I understand my enrollment and/or changes will be effective the first of the month following a full payroll deduction. I also understand my elections are IRREVOCABLE until the next annual open enrollment period, unless I have a Qualifying Status Change as defined by the Federal Internal Revenue Code and/or the Florida Administrative Code. I understand that I must request such changes within thirty-one (31) calendar days of the Qualifying Status Change. The open enrollment period for the next year, the 2007 plan year, began on September 19, 2006, and ended on October 18, 2006. On October 14, 2006, Mr. Murray notified Colonial that he wanted to cancel the supplemental insurance for the 2007 plan year. He used a Colonial Request for Services form and sent it to the Colonial Processing Center in Columbia, South Carolina. In a letter dated February 14, 2007, Colonial acknowledged receiving Mr. Murray's request to cancel the insurance during the 2006 enrollment period, and informed him of its receipt of an "overpayment" of $47.46 monthly beginning January 1, 2007. Colonial directed Mr. Murray to contact his personnel officer "which will then work through the Division to issue your refund." After the open enrollment period ended, Mr. Murray had also contacted People First on November 14, 2006, and gave notice of his attempt to cancel with Colonial. He was informed that Colonial had not informed People First of the cancellation. Mr. Murray contacted People First again on January 29, 2007, questioning the continued payroll deductions and requesting a refund, as Colonial had suggested. He was told that he would have to cancel with People First during the open enrollment period, but he could send a letter of appeal to try to get a refund of premiums and try to cancel sooner. Despite repeated contacts, requests for refunds, and appeals to People First during 2007, Mr. Murray continued to have premiums for supplemental insurance deducted from his pay check. Ultimately, the Division denied his appeal. Although Mr. Murray was trying to get a refund for 2007 payroll deductions, he again failed to notify People First to cancel the insurance during the open enrollment period between September 17, 2007, and October 19, 2007, for the 2008 plan year. There is no evidence that Mr. Murray had a qualifying status change, as required by federal and state law, that would have permitted him to cancel the insurance at any time other than during open enrollment periods for the 2007 and 2008 plan years. The enrollment period for the 2009 plan year began on September 22, 2008, and ended on October 17, 2008. On September 24, 2008, Mr. Murray cancelled the supplemental insurance for the 2009 plan year by making a telephone call to a People First representative. In a late-filed exhibit produced by a manager for Convergys at the request of Petitioner, the Division showed that payments were made to Colonial to insure Mr. Murray through November 24, 2008. Sandi Wade, the Division's benefits administrator, noted that Colonial should not have canceled Mr. Murray's insurance policy. Colonial had no authority to send the letter of February 14, 2007, incorrectly telling Mr. Murray he was entitled to a refund. Ms. Wade's observations prompted Mr. Murray to question what, if any, remedies he might have with regard to Colonial's error. That issue is not and cannot be considered in this proceeding. In the absence of evidence that the Division or its agents were notified to cancel the supplemental insurance during open enrollment periods for 2007 and 2008, or based on a qualifying status change, Petitioner's request for a refund of premiums must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurnace, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Detrick Murray, a refund of his accident/disability insurance coverage premiums paid in 2007 and 2008. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Detrick Murray 4370 Northwest 187th Street Miami, Florida 33055 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of State Group Insurance Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Petitioner is entitled to a premium refund of her health insurance premium.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mildred Daw, is a retired State employee. She is enrolled in the State of Florida, State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (the Plan). Prior to retiring, Petitioner amended her coverage in the Plan, changing from single coverage to family coverage. Petitioner modified her coverage so that her husband would be covered under the Plan. Petitioner's husband was under age 65 and qualified for Medicare Parts A and B. Petitioner was not qualified for Medicare coverage. The premium for family coverage was $178.44 per month. Petitioner began paying this amount shortly before she retired in December 1984. By letter dated, July 8, 1985, the Division of State Employees' Insurance notified retirees that: If you are under age 65 and eligible for Medicare Part A and B because of disability, you may now be eligible for Medicare Coordination coverage at the reduced rate. Please notify our office if you are eligible and send a copy of your Medicare card. Your premium will be reduced the month following our receipt of your notice and the copy of your Medicare card. The letter was sent to retirees and made no mention of surviving spouses or that a current spouse, who fit within the Medicare category, could qualify the insured for Medicare Coordination coverage. The Medicare Coordination coverage is the only program that the State offers in which it is the spouse of the insured/retiree who can qualify the insured for new benefits or different coverage. In this case, the different coverage or new benefit was solely a reduction in premium. Otherwise, the benefits under the family coverage and the Medicare Coordination coverage were the same. An ordinary person reading the letter would not have been placed on notice and would not have assumed that anyone other than the retiree was covered by the letter. If Petitioner had immediately elected the Medicare Coordination coverage, her premium would have been reduced by $42.76 a month, beginning with the August 1985, payment. The July 8, 1985, letter was mailed by first class mail to all retired State employees in the Plan. The business practice of the Division is to mail any such letters to the address of the retiree listed with the Division of Retirement and given to the Division of State Employees' Insurance or to the most current address the Division of Employees Insurance has for that particular retiree. In this case, the address which the Division of Retirement would have had on Petitioner in 1985 was her old address in Jacksonville. However, by July 1985, Petitioner had mailed the Division of State Employees' Insurance a change of address card with her new Pensacola address. She did not mail the Division of Retirement a change of address. There is no evidence as to which address the Respondent mailed the July 8, 1985, letter. Without such evidence Respondent is not entitled to a presumption of proper notice when a letter is mailed to a party with the correct address. Petitioner does not remember receiving the July 8, 1985, letter. She would have elected the Medicare Coordination coverage had she been aware of its availability. Petitioner became aware of her eligibility for reduced premiums in October 1987, when she received an informational bulletin from the Division of State Employees' Insurance. The bulletin stated the premium rates for various types of insurance coverage, including the reduced premiums for family coverage with members of the family who are qualified for Medicare benefits. Petitioner telephoned the Division and was instructed by Division personnel to send in a copy of her husband's Medicare card in order to establish her eligibility for the reduced premium. Petitioner sent a copy of her husband's Medicare card to the Division in October 1987. On November 6, 1987, Petitioner requested a refund of excess insurance premiums paid from July 1985, through November 1987. On December 28, 1987, Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the earliest date a change in coverage could become effective was October 1987, because Petitioner had not applied for a change of coverage prior to that time. Petitioner was awarded an excess premium refund for the premium paid for November coverage. The Rules governing the Plan are found in Chapter 22I-1, Florida Administrative Code. This Chapter generally requires that an employee or retiree perform an affirmative act, by completing an informational form and sending it to the Department, before any change in coverage can be effectuated. The reason for such a requirement is that the Department has no way of knowing the number of eligible employees or retirees, without being supplied that information from the insureds, so that the Plan's administrator can better manage the Plan's funds to provide an adequate amount for the payment of claims. However, competing with this Rule is the Respondent's policy that a retiree who is otherwise eligible for certain benefits, but did not receive any notice of such eligibility is entitled to retroactive benefits. This policy is based on the Division's duty to administer the State's health plan, including notifying retirees of the availability of new types of coverage or benefits. The evidence showed that this policy takes precedence over the Rule when the Division has failed to notify an eligible retiree. In this case the Division failed to notify Petitioner of her eligibility for Medicare Coordination coverage due to her spouse's qualifications. Petitioner is therefore entitled to retroactive benefits beginning July 1985. Since the benefit of the Medicare Coordination coverage is a reduced premium, Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess premium of $42.76 a month from July 1985, through October 1987. The refund for that time period totals $1,154.52.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order refunding to Petitioner excess premiums paid to the Department in the amount of $1,154.52. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-301 The facts contained in paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j and k of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs l, m, and n of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph p of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph o of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are rejected. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence except for the fact relating to the letter being mailed first class mail. COPIES FURNISHED: Karren Lessard 15 West La Rua Street Pensacola, Florida 32521 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Andrew McMullian III Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement under the State of Florida Group Health Insurance Plan for certain health care expenses she has incurred since she became a State employee and enrolled in the Plan. The Petitioner contends that she is entitled to reimbursement and to attorney's fees. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner is entitled to neither. The central factual dispute is whether the Petitioner's claim for benefits is barred by the provision in the Plan which excludes benefits for pre-existing conditions during the first 365 days of participation in the Plan. At the formal hearing in this case, the Petitioner testified on her own behalf and also presented the testimony of Donald M. Whitley, II, Ph.D. The Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. William Seaton. Both parties offered exhibits. Also, the parties stipulated to the filing of the transcript of the deposition of F. A. Munasifi, M.D., as a late-filed exhibit. Subsequent to the hearing both parties filed proposed recommended orders, which have been carefully considered during the preparation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by both parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admissions Petitioner, Terri J. Ganson, (hereinafter "Petitioner" or "Ganson") enrolled in the State of Florida Group Health Insurance Plan (hereinafter "Plan") in January, 1986, and has been validly enrolled as a member in good standing since said date. The pre-existing condition exclusion appears as Subsection VIII.C. of the State Employees Group Self-Insurance Document and provides: 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 are received during the three hundred and sixty-five (365) conse- cutive 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 cover- ed by the plan. The Plan, at Subsection I.AE., defines "illness" as follows: "Illness" means physical sickness or disease, pregnancy, bodily injury, congenital anomaly or mental or nervous disorder. Illness for the purposes of this Plan shall entitle an insured to benefits for any medically nece- ssary services related to elective surgical procedures performed by a physician for the purpose of sterilization. By the terms of the Plan, the pre-existing condition paragraph of the Plan applied to claims filed by Petitioner for treatments received during the period from February 1, 1986, until January 31, 1987. Those claims submitted by Petitioner or on Petitioner's behalf for reimbursement under the Plan which were denied on the basis of the pre-existing condition exclusion and which are the subject of this dispute amount to a total of $5,682.15 for services provided by the following providers in the respective amounts shown: a. TMRMC $2,352.65 b. Dr. Shamis $225.50 c. Dr. Munasifi $50.00 d. Biomedical Ref. $50.00 e. Dr. Whitley $3,000.00 The services received by Petitioner for which reimbursement is in dispute were services actually received by Petitioner, Petitioner was charged for such services in the aggregate amounts specified, such services were medically necessary treatments, such services were rendered for the treatment of bipolar disorder, and such services were otherwise covered by the Plan. Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for the amount of the charges for such services, without limitation or exclusion, if said condition for which services were rendered did not constitute a pre-existing condition (i.e., an "accident or illness" for which Petitioner "received diagnostic treatment or received services within three hundred and sixty-five days prior to . . ." her enrollment in the Plan. Findings based on the testimony and the exhibits Prior to her enrollment in the Plan, the Petitioner had been diagnosed as having situational depression, for which she had received treatment prior to her enrollment in the Plan. Part of that treatment occurred within three hundred sixty-five days immediately preceding Petitioner's enrollment in the Plan. Prior to her enrollment in the Plan, the Petitioner had never been diagnosed as having bipolar affective disorder. Prior to her enrollment in the Plan, the Petitioner had never been treated for bipolar affective disorder. Bipolar affective disorder is believed to be caused by a deregulation of the chemical neurotransmitters in the brain. The primary treatment modality for bipolar affective disorder is the administration of lithium carbonate. The administration of lithium carbonate is specific for bipolar affective disorder and the use of lithium carbonate is one of the main differences between treatment for bipolar affective disorder and the type of depression for which Petitioner was treated prior to her enrollment in the Plan. Behavioral therapy may also be of assistance in the treatment of the symptoms of bipolar affective disorder, as it is in the treatment of the symptoms of other conditions which cause depression. Situational depression and bipolar affective disorder are separate and distinct conditions; they are not the same condition. Specifically, the former is not an earlier stage of the latter. The fact that both conditions have certain common symptoms (i.e., periods of depression) does not mean that they are the same condition.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order to the following effect: Reimbursing the Petitioner for her medical expenses in the amounts stipulated to by the parties, namely, $5,682.15; and Denying the Petitioner's claim for attorney's fees in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-1654 The following are my specific rulings on all of the findings of the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 (including subparts [a] through [f]): Accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Accepted in substance with most details omitted as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as unnecessary details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 19: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Accepted. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: First sentence accepted in substance. Remainder of this paragraph rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 30, 31 and 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts. Paragraphs 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51: Rejected as consti-tuting summaries of argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts, with exception of proposed finding regarding effective date of coverage. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance with unnecesary details deleted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of the admitted facts and also as not entirely consistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance as to date of first diagnosis. Rejected insofar as it suggests that Dr. Munasifi "refused" to make a particular statement. Paragraph 13: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 14: Accepted as to nature of diagnosis. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: First sentence is accepted. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third and fourth sentences are rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 16 and 17: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 18: Rejected as irrelevant and as an over- simplification which suggests an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Final unnumbered summary paragraph: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact and, in any event, as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Kranz, Esquire Eric B. Tilton, P.A. P. O. Drawer 550 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
