The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Robbie Reynolds, is eligible for family medical insurance coverage for medical expenses incurred by the Petitioner's son?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner, Robbie W. Reynolds, was an employee of Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is responsible for managing the State's employee health insurance system. Participation in the State of Florida Health Insurance Plan. The State of Florida makes health insurance available to its employees (hereinafter referred to as the "State Health Plan"). Employees may choose health insurance through the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan or through various health maintenance organizations (hereinafter referred to as "HMOs"). The Division has promulgated Chapter 60P, Florida Administrative Code, regulating the State Health Plan. Employees pay part of the premiums for their health insurance and the State contributes a part of the cost of premiums. The amount of premiums paid by an employee and the State depends on the type of coverage selected. Employees may elect coverage only for themselves ("individual" coverage), or coverage for themselves and certain qualified dependents ("family" coverage). Female employees who elect individual coverage are eligible for the payment of maternity or pregnancy benefits. Included in these benefits are certain benefits for the newborn child referred to as "well-baby care." In order for medical expenses attributable solely to a newborn baby that is ill at or after birth to be covered by the State Health Plan, an employee must elect family coverage for the employee and the child. The family coverage must be effective as of the date the medical expenses are incurred for the child. Open Enrollment Periods. Once an employee selects the type of health insurance he or she desires, that employee generally may change the election only during certain designated periods of time, referred to as "open enrollment periods." During an open enrollment period, an employee may change from HMO coverage to the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan, or vice versa, may change from individual coverage to family coverage, or vice versa, and may add or delete dependents to the employee's family coverage. Changes to an employees' State Health Plan coverage made during an open enrollment period are effective for the calendar year immediately following the open enrollment period. Other Changes in Health Insurance Coverage. An exception to the requirement of the State Health Plan that changes in coverage only be made during an open enrollment period is provided for certain specified events, referred to as "qualifying events." The acquisition of an "eligible dependent" during a year may constitute a qualifying event. For example, if an employee marries, the employee may elect family coverage for himself or herself and the employee's spouse. A change from individual coverage to family coverage may also be made if an employee or an employee's spouse gives birth to a child. The change to family coverage as a result of marriage or the birth of a child must be made within thirty-one days after the eligible dependent is acquired. An employee may also elect family coverage as a result of the employee or the employee's spouse becoming pregnant. If the employee or employee's spouse elects family coverage in time for the family coverage to be effective at the time of the child's birth, the child may then be added as a dependent to the family coverage by notifying the Division of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the child is born. In order to change to family coverage when an employee or employee's spouse becomes pregnant, the employee, must apply for the change to family coverage in time for the employee to make a month's premium payment on the first day of at least the month during which the child is born or an earlier month. For example, if an employee elects to change from individual coverage to family coverage for a yet to be born child in July effective for September, the first full month's premium is paid on September 1, and the child is born on September 2, the employee has family coverage for all of September and the child will be covered if the Division is notified of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the date of birth. In order for an employee to make a change in coverage as the result of a qualifying event, the employee must file a Change of Information form with the employee's personnel office. The personnel office forwards the form to the Division. Ms. Reynolds' Health Insurance. Ms. Reynolds, as an employee of the State of Florida, was eligible for state health insurance. She elected to participate in the HMO that was available in the Gainesville area where she is employed. AvMed is the name of the HMO for the Gainesville area and Ms. Reynolds' insurer. Although married, Ms. Reynolds initially elected individual coverage. Ms. Reynolds did not elect family coverage for her husband because he received health insurance benefits from his employer. During 1992, Ms. Reynolds became pregnant. The baby's projected due date was April 15, 1993. The Open Enrollment Period for 1993. The open enrollment period for the next calendar year (1993) after Ms. Reynolds became pregnant took place in October of 1992. During the October 1992 open enrollment period the Department of Corrections, through its personnel office, conducted meetings with employees to discuss health care benefits and coverage available to its employees. Two benefits consultants, trained by the Division, conducted the meetings, providing information to, and answering questions from, employees concerning the open enrollment period. Ms. Reynolds, who was approximately three months pregnant at the time of the benefit consultation meetings, attended one of the sessions. Ms. Reynolds attended the session for the purpose of determining what steps she should take to insure that her yet-to-be-born infant was covered by health insurance. Ms. Reynolds spoke for some time with Gail Page and Jordaina Chambers, benefits consultants of the Department of Corrections. Ms. Reynolds informed the benefits consultants that she was pregnant and that she wanted to insure that her yet-to-be-born infant was covered by her health insurance. Ms. Reynolds was incorrectly told that she could not elect family coverage for just her and her yet-to-be-born infant. This incorrect advice, however, did not have any effect on the effective date Ms. Reynolds ultimately decided to begin her family coverage. Ms. Reynolds also informed the benefits consultants that the baby was due April 15, 1993. The benefits consultants informed Ms. Reynolds that her pregnancy constituted a qualifying event and that she could, therefore, switch to family coverage in order to cover her baby. She was also informed that she would have to notify the Division of her child's birth with thirty-one days after birth to add the child to the policy. After being told that she would have to switch her coverage from individual coverage to family coverage, adding her husband as a dependent, Ms. Reynolds asked the benefits consultants when she should switch to family coverage. Consistent with the policies of the Division, and the training the benefits consultants had received from the Division, the benefits consultants advised Ms. Reynolds that she should elect family coverage effective two or three months prior to her due date. The Division makes this recommendation so that employees can save the increased premiums for family coverage a reasonable period of time before the child is born. In light of the fact that Ms. Reynolds' conversation with the benefits consultants took place during the 1992 open enrollment period and the fact that January 1, 1993 was three and one-half months prior to Ms. Reynolds' due date, Ms. Reynolds was advised by the benefits consultants that it would be reasonable to switch from individual coverage to family coverage through the open enrollment period. Based upon this advice, Ms. Reynolds' family coverage would be effective January 1, 1993. The benefits consultants did not advise Ms. Reynolds of any possible consequences of not electing to switch from individual coverage to family coverage with an effective date prior to January 1, 1993. The benefits consultants also did not tell Ms. Reynolds that she could not choose to switch from her individual coverage to family coverage with an effective date prior to January 1, 1993. On or about October 15, 1992, Ms. Reynolds executed and filed with the Division an Annual Benefit Election Form. Respondent's exhibit 1. Pursuant to this form Ms. Reynolds elected to change her health insurance coverage from individual to family effective January 1, 1993. Ms. Reynolds elected to add her husband as a covered dependent. Based upon the election made by Ms. Reynolds, her family coverage became effective on January 1, 1993. If her child was born before that date, any expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child would not covered by Ms. Reynolds' medical coverage. If the child was born on or after that date and Ms. Reynolds notified the Division of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the child's birth, any expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child would be covered by Ms. Reynolds' medical coverage. The evidence failed to prove that the advice given by the benefits consultants in October 1992 was not reasonable based upon the information available to them and to Ms. Reynolds. The evidence also failed to prove that either the benefits consultants or Ms. Reynolds unreasonably failed to realize that the child would be born more than three and one-half months premature. Ms. Reynolds, while reasonably relying on the advice of the benefits consultants, knew or should have known that the ultimate decision as to when to begin family coverage was hers to make. Ms. Reynolds also should have been somewhat wary of the advice she was given, in light of the fact that Ms. Reynolds admitted that she was told by the benefits consultants that they "did not know that much about what she was asking." Despite this warning, Ms. Reynolds testified during the final hearing that she followed their advice because she felt there was "no reason to believe they would be wrong." The Premature Birth of the Reynolds' Child. On December 29, 1992, Ms. Reynolds underwent surgery, due to unforeseen medical complications, to deliver her child. The child died on January 1, 1993. In order to add the child as a dependent to her medical insurance when the child was born, Ms. Reynolds had to have family coverage in effect as of December 1, 1992 or earlier. Unfortunately for Ms. Reynolds, on December 29, 1992 when her child was born, Ms. Reynolds only had individual coverage. The rules governing medical benefits of state employees do not allow employees with individual coverage to add dependents. Therefore, even though Ms. Reynolds attempted to get the Division, through the personnel office of the Department of Corrections, to add her child by notifying the personnel office of the birth of the child immediately after December 29, 1993, the child could not be added to her individual coverage. The child received medical services and incurred medical expenses between December 29, 1992 and January 1, 1993. Those expenses were not covered by the well-baby care provided by Ms. Reynolds' individual coverage. Because Ms. Reynolds did not have family coverage at the time the child was born and the child could not be added to her individual coverage, the medical expenses incurred for the child were not covered by Ms. Reynolds' health insurance. Although the child should be added as a dependent to Ms. Reynolds family coverage which took effect as of January 1, 1993, the evidence failed to prove that any medical expenses incurred for the care of the child on January 1, 1993, were not attributable to a preexisting condition. Therefore, expenses incurred for the care of the child on January 1, 1993, are not eligible for reimbursement. Should the Division be Estopped from Denying Coverage? The Division relies on benefits consultants to assist the Division in administering the State Health Plan. Benefits consultants are trained by the Division, they are state employees and they hold themselves out as representing the State in general and the Division in particular. The Division's rules provide for the active involvement of the various personnel offices in administering the State Health Plan. See, Rule 60P- 2.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Annual Benefit Election Forms issued by the Division during the open enrollment specifically provide that the forms are to be turned in to employees' personnel offices. The Division allows personnel offices of the various state agencies to hold themselves out to employees as agents of the Division. In this case, Ms. Reynolds was given advice by benefits consultants, on behalf of the Division and consistent with Division policy, which played a role in Ms. Reynolds making a decision which resulted in medical expenses incurred upon the premature birth of her child not being covered by her medical insurance. While Ms. Reynolds was given some incorrect advice, she was not given incorrect advice concerning the effective date of her family coverage. The advice given to Ms. Reynolds concerning when to start her family coverage was reasonable at the time given and, as she admitted during the hearing, there was no reason in October of 1992 to doubt the wisdom of the advice she received. Ultimately, it was Ms. Reynolds decision. While she may not have understood that advice, she made the decision to make choices and act on the advice even after being warned that the benefits consultants were not knowledgeable about what she was asking.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Robbie W. Reynolds' petition in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3731 The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ms. Reynolds did not file a proposed recommended order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 2-3 and 19. Accepted in 4-5, 9 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 6 and 9. Accepted in 11-17. Accepted in 7-8. Accepted in 1 and 18-19. Accepted in 23-26. Accepted in 20, 28 and 30-32. But See 27-20. See 29-30. But see 27. Accepted in 34 and 38. See 40. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 40-41 COPIES FURNISHED: Robbie W. Reynolds 2635 South West 35th Place, #1304 Gainesville, Florida 32608 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. Chief of Bureau of Benefits and Legal Services Division of State Employees' Insurance Department of Management Services 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4876 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark Alan Gable, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as a life and health insurance agent and was so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent at all times relevant to these proceedings was licensed in this state to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Insurance Company (herein National). On or about September 28, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Mabel Bowmaster of Sarasota, Florida, for the purpose of soliciting health insurance. At the time, Ms. Bowmaster was insured under the provisions of a protective life medicare supplement insurance policy. Ms. Bowmaster was interested in purchasing a policy that offered custodial nursing care benefits as her protective life policy did not offer such coverage. Respondent was not a stranger to Ms. Bowmaster as he had sold her a medicare supplement policy in 1987 and had processed claims for Ms. Bowmaster during 1987, although she did not remember him. Although Ms. Bowmaster was interested in purchasing custodial care, when Respondent explained to her the cost of the coverage versus the benefits that she could receive, she was convinced that the premiums for a custodial care policy was too expensive and she declined to purchase the coverage. In fact, Respondent tendered a certification to Ms. Bowmaster which acknowledged that she had been explained the benefits, that she understood them and there is, in that medicare supplement policy, a specific exclusion of custodial care. (Respondent's Exhibit 18 and 3.) During August 1989, Ms. Bowmaster was visited by another insurance agent, a Chris Morrison, who was also soliciting insurance. At agent Morrison's urging, Ms. Bowmaster cancelled the medicare supplement policy that Respondent had sold her after he showed her a copy of a St. Petersburg Times article which was critical of Respondent and after Morrison suggested that Respondent was in trouble with the Petitioner. When Ms. Bowmaster cancelled her insurance policy that she purchased from Respondent, she wrote a letter to National States Insurance Company asking them not to honor the bank draft authorization that she had signed for the year 1989. Notwithstanding the letter Ms. Bowmaster sent to National, the bank draft was honored. As a result, Ms. Bowmaster filed an insurance consumer service complaint with Petitioner stating the reason for cancelling the policy was that she had duplicative coverage as a result of her purchase of the same coverage from Mr. Morrison and she therefore requested a refund of the National policy in light of her request that the bank draft be terminated. In none of Bowmaster's correspondence to National during August and November 1989, was there any reference of any misrepresentation of coverage by Respondent for custodial care coverage. On or about February 11, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Alice V. Bowling of Bradenton for the purpose of soliciting health insurance. Ms. Bowling is an 82 year-old widow whose primary source of income is social security. At the time, Ms. Bowling was insured under the provisions of a Prudential Insurance AARP (American's Association of Retired Persons) medicare supplement insurance policy and an Old Southern medicare supplement insurance policy. Respondent discussed with Ms. Bowling her existing insurance coverages. Ms. Bowling was interested in obtaining an insurance policy that would pay benefits for hearing aids, eyeglasses and dental care. Neither of her existing policies offered such benefits. Respondent's purpose in visiting Ms. Bowling during February of 1988 was to follow-up on a lapse of a National States Medical/Surgical policy. During the interview with Ms. Bowling, she informed Respondent that she had in effect a policy with AARP and the National policy that was soon to lapse. She did not tell him that she had a policy with Old Southern. While Ms. Bowling testified that she showed Respondent a copy of the Old Southern policy, the evidence adduced at hearing indicates otherwise. It was noted that when Respondent purchased the National States policy during 1987, she did not tell that agent about the existence of the Old Southern policy. (Respondent's Exhibit 7.) Additionally, when Ms. Bowling signed the notice to applicant regarding replacement of accident and sickness insurance form, she indicated that she was replacing a Prudential policy. The application for insurance also indicates her replacement for the Prudential policy. After Respondent reviewed with Ms. Bowling her AARP policy and the National States policy, he advised her that he could process some claims for her under the lapsed National States policy. As a result, Respondent submitted claims for Ms. Bowling and she was reimbursed for medical bills for which she had not previously sought payment. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 8.) Respondent and Ms. Bowling discussed eyeglass and hearing aid coverage to determine if she should purchase it. However, based on Ms. Bowling's desire to hold the cost of insurance down, and after Respondent explained to her that under the eyeglass-hearing aid rider, it would cost her approximately $340 in premiums to get $500 in coverage, she declined such coverage. By way of example, Respondent explained that the premium for the rider was $125, deductible of $75 pays 80% with a maximum coverage of $500; so on a $700 bill, it would pay $500, indicating that the insurance payment of $340 was for $500 worth of benefits. Evidence of Ms. Bowling's rejection was noted in the outline of coverage which specifically excludes eye glasses and hearing aids. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Ms. Bowling acknowledged that the benefits of the policy was clearly explained to her. After Respondent's initial visit, Ms. Bowling decided to cancel the policy. Upon receiving notice of cancellation, Respondent called upon Ms. Bowling to determine her reason for cancelling the policy. Respondent again explained the coverage to Ms. Bowling in the presence of her son. Ms. Bowling acknowledges that Respondent explained to her at the second visit that eye glasses, dentures and hearing aids were not covered by the policy, that the rider would be required to provide that coverage; and she then again elected not to purchase the rider coverage but kept the policy in force. Evidence of this continuation of coverage is in Ms. Bowling's handwriting which reflects "After talking to my agent Mark Gable, I have decided to keep the UMS 1060437 in force." Thereafter, Ms. Bowling again decided to cancel the policy and in correspondence with National States, she related that after reviewing the policy with others, she concluded that she could not afford the coverage. Ms. Bowling, at the time, made no complaint about Respondent having misrepresented the existence of eyeglass or similar coverage, but simply requested a refund. After the company failed to forward a refund to Ms. Bowling, she filed a complaint with Petitioner asserting that she was entitled to a refund, but she made no reference to any claim of misrepresentation of coverage. At hearing, Ms. Bowling acknowledged that she cancelled the policy because the coverage was too expensive. Ms. Bowling made no mention of any misrepresentation by Respondent for coverage for eye glasses, dentures or hearing aids until the interviews by Petitioner's investigators. On or about July 19, 1990, Respondent visited the home of Fred V. Lively of Englewood for the purpose of discussing health insurance. At the time, Mr. Lively had recently purchased an American Traveler's Long-Term care insurance policy effective as of July 13, 1990, and offered custodial nursing care insurance benefits. It is alleged that Respondent sold a nursing home policy to Mr. Lively representing that the policy provided coverage for custodial care and he failed to advise Mr. Lively that the policy called for a three (3) day confinement in a hospital as a condition precedent to the payment of benefits. The policy that Respondent sold to Mr. Lively did not require such a waiting period as it included a rider eliminating the waiting period. This fact was confirmed by William J. O'Connor, the manager of policy services for National States. During July of 1990, Mr. Lively was running a lapse notice on the National States policy previously sold to him by Steve Daggett, a former employee of National States. Initially, Respondent showed the Livelys a Penn States policy and a Transport Life policy for nursing home care, both of which included custodial care. The premiums on both policies approached $5,000 a year and the Livelys determined that they were too expensive. As a result, they were rejected. Thereafter, Respondent explained the National States nursing care policy which provided skilled and intermediate care and the Livelys elected to purchase the nursing care policy. Prior to the Livelys purchase, Respondent reviewed the coverage provided and an outline of coverage was left with the Livelys as well as an outline prepared by Respondent. In addition, based on the pendency of administrative charges in this matter, Respondent had the Livelys acknowledge, in their own handwriting, that "all of the benefits of this outline has been explained to me in full and a signed copy of this outline has been left with me, by my agent, Agent is Mark Gable," followed by the signature of Fred Lively. (Respondent's Exhibits 15 and 16.) Additionally, the Livelys signed two further certifications and a customer survey report prepared by Respondent. This was done in an attempt by Respondent to avert claims generated by other agents by having new clients under certification to indicate that the coverage was explained. Shortly after the Respondent sold the insurance to the Livelys, Steve Daggett, the agent who had sold the Livelys their American Traveler's policy, arrived at the Livelys' home and convinced Mr. Lively that his policy was to have included custodial care; cited that Respondent had failed to reveal that and he (Daggett) related that Respondent had failed to reveal that he (Lively) suffered from diabetes for the purpose of suggesting that Respondent had "clean sheeted" the application which would thereafter result in a denial of coverage if a claim was made. A review of Respondent's application filed with the Lively deposition showed that Respondent revealed the existence of Mr. Lively's diabetes. Sometimes after August 21, 1990, Respondent again visited the Livelys and requested that they reconsider their decision to cancel the policy. Following Respondent's review of the policy and the coverages, Mr. Lively signed a letter which was submitted to National States requesting that the policy be kept in force. National States received the letter and the cancellation of the Lively policies was rescinded. On or about October 6, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Martha Roche for the purpose of soliciting health insurance. As a result of their discussion, Ms. Roche purchased two National States insurance policies. Although Ms. Roche testified that Respondent represented himself as an insurance adjuster for the purposes of gaining entry into her home, the testimony does not comport with the documentary evidence or her practice with respect to letting insurance agents into her home. At times, Ms. Roche has had as many as three insurance agents in her home at one time. Respondent was following up on a lapse notice with respect to prior National States policies which Ms. Roche had purchased from Respondent. At her front door, Respondent showed Ms. Roche his insurance license and she granted him entrance. On November 3, 1988, or less than thirty (30) days after the policy was originally written by Respondent, Respondent returned to Ms. Roche's home after receiving a notice of cancellation with respect to the policy in question. After discussing the matter with her, she decided to save the policy and wrote a handwritten note asking that the coverage be continued. During the November 3, 1988 meeting with Ms. Roche, which was well after the bank draft authorization had been submitted to National States, Ms. Roche indicated that she did not wish to stay on the draft plan in the following year. Respondent explained to Ms. Roche that she should write a letter to National States and to the bank to terminate the bank plan. In addition to this advice, Respondent was aware that National States would advise Ms. Roche of her right to terminate the bank plan and the procedure for termination as the bank plan is a contract between the insured and the bank. Respondent was without authority to terminate the bank plan that Ms. Roche authorized. Ms. Roche requested cancellation of the bank draft as Respondent instructed her, although the bank continued payment until she filed a complaint with Petitioner, complaining that National States insurance had failed to cancel her bank draft plan. Ms. Roche fails to allege in her complaint to Petitioner or otherwise suggest that Respondent used any false pretense to gain entry to her home. Ms. Roche's complaint was that National States did not refund her money after she wrote requesting a refund. Subsequently, a refund was given to Ms. Roche.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Martin Errol Rice, Esquire 696 First Avenue North Post Office Box 205 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondents violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent The Administrators Corporation (hereinafter "TAC") has been an authorized administrator, and Respondent Charles N. Zalis (hereinafter "Zalis") has been licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a legal expense insurance sales representative in the State of Florida. Zalis is the chief executive officer of TAC. TAC is not licensed in Florida as an insurer. An authorized administrator in Florida may engage in the solicitation, negotiation, transaction and/or sale of insurance in Florida if such activity takes place pursuant to an agreement between the authorized administrator and an authorized insurer. Life and Health Insurance Company of America (hereinafter "Life & Health"), which is not a party to this administrative proceeding, is an authorized insurer in Florida. On April 13, 1988, TAC entered into a contract with Life & Health to market and service group health insurance. The term of that contract was for four years and one month. Life & Health attempted to terminate its Administrator Agreement with TAC by letter dated March 16, 1989, effective immediately. The date on which the responsibilities under that Administrator Agreement terminated, if ever, is an issue in dispute between Life & Health and TAC. The Department takes no position on that issue. That issue is the subject of a civil lawsuit filed in Broward County, between Life & Health and TAC, which is currently being litigated. Although Life & Health's original position was that the contract between it and TAC terminated as of March 16, 1989, that position apparently changed because Life & Health continued paying claims up to July 1, 1989. TAC's position was that Life & Health's responsibilities under that contract did not terminate until September 26, 1989, when George Washington, an authorized group health insurance carrier in Florida, agreed to assume the risk for the block of business retroactive to July 1, 1989. TAC could have obtained a replacement carrier earlier than September 26, 1989, if the Department had advised TAC and Zalis as to the procedure involved to allow Summit Homes, an authorized property and casualty insurer, to broaden the scope of its certificate of authority to include group health insurance. The simple procedure could have been accomplished in as little as 24 to 48 hours. A group health insurance carrier remains on the risk to its policyholders until there has been a valid cancellation or termination of that coverage. In the pending Circuit Court litigation between Life & Health and TAC, the validity of the termination or cancellation and the date of same are ultimate issues in that law suit and have not yet been determined by the Court. On March 27, 1989, Life & Health sent a letter to agents informing them of its termination of its relationship with TAC and that it would not accept any new business written after March 16, 1989. The evidence in this cause, however, indicates that Life & Health did continue to accept new business after that date. The Department became aware of the dispute between Life & Health and TAC on June 8, 1989. The Department knew as of July 12, 1989, that TAC was continuing to write business on Life & Health "paper." At some point after the attempted March 16, 1989, termination of the contract by Life & Health, TAC and Life & Health informally agreed to a July 1, 1989, date after which Life & Health would no longer be responsible for any claims and TAC would have a replacement insurer in place to take over the block of business. That agreement was based upon TAC and Life & Health each agreeing to cooperate with each other and to take certain actions to facilitate the transfer of the book of business. Both the Department and the Circuit Court were aware of the informal agreement whereby Life & Health agreed to remain on the risk for the block of business at least through July 1, 1989, and Zalis and TAC would issue no further policies on Life & Health "paper" and would not remain involved in the processing or payment of claims after July 1, 1989. Prior to July 12, 1989, those matters required to take place in connection with the July 1, 1989, "cutoff" date had not been accomplished, and Zalis and TAC continued writing new business on Life & Health "paper" believing that Life & Health was still legally responsible. Zalis informed the Department's investigator on July 12, 1989, that he was writing and that he intended to continue to write new business on Life & Health "paper." No evidence was presented to show that the Department notified Zalis or TAC that they could not do so, and the Department took no action to stop that activity. Additionally, Life & Health took no action to enjoin TAC or Zalis from writing new business on Life & Health "paper." The evidence does suggest that Life & Health may have continued to accept the benefits and liabilities. The premiums for policies written by TAC on Life & Health "paper" after July 1, 1989, were not forwarded to Life & Health; rather, they were retained by TAC in a trust account. Zalis and TAC offered to deposit those monies with the Circuit Court in which the litigation between TAC and Life & Health was pending or to transmit those monies to the Department to insure that the monies would be available for the payment of claims. Pursuant to an agreement with the Department, the monies representing those premium payments were transmitted to the Department On September 26, 1989, George Washington Insurance Company, an authorized health insurance company in the State of Florida, agreed to take over the block of business from Life & Health, retroactive to July 1, 1989. Life & Health, however, had not yet signed the assumption agreement to transfer its responsibility to George Washington Insurance Company as of the time of the final hearing in this cause. TAC and Zalis did not place any Florida insurance business with any companies not authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent Zalis has been in the insurance business for 26 years and enjoys a good reputation for honesty and integrity. Zalis and TAC have never had prior administrative action taken against them. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, there had been no Circuit Court determination of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Life & Health's termination of the Administrators Agreement nor of the date of that termination, if any.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and dismissing the Order to Show Cause filed against them. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5981 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6-9, 14-17, 20, 21, and 25-27 have been adopted either in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13, and 22 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 19 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 18, 23, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter D. Ostreich, Esquire Office of Treasurer and Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Jerome H. Shevin, Esquire Wallace, Engels, Pertnoy, Martin, & Solowsky, P.A. CenTrust Financial Center 21st Floor 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Davis, Marks & Rutledge, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue 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
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents and the regulation of the insurance business in Florida. Respondent, Richard M. Rinker, was licensed by the Petitioner as a health insurance agent engaged in the business of soliciting, selling and servicing health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company. Levon H. and Joan D. Sprague, husband and wife, moved to Florida from New York in August, 1991. Prior to moving to Florida, the Spragues operated a restaurant in New York and purchased health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for themselves and some of their employees. They also owned a H.I.P. policy which was similar to a health maintenance organization, but both that coverage and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were dropped when they moved to Florida. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Sprague were getting older, and because both had indications of possible future health problems based on experience and family history, upon the recommendation of Mrs. Sprague's father, who had purchased coverage from Respondent and was satisfied with the service received, they contacted Respondent and met with him about purchasing health insurance. The first meeting was on January 6, 1992. At that time, the Sprague's made Respondent aware of the fact that they had no health insurance coverage at that time and that they wanted to purchase coverage which would give them 100 percent reimbursement of all bills for medical care rendered. After some discussion, they agreed to accept less coverage for doctors' bills and other professional services, but were quite adamant in reiterating they wanted a policy that would cover 100 percent of the cost of hospitalization. They emphasized this because of Mr. Sprague's family's history of heart problems and they wanted to be sure the hospital expense would be covered in full. They felt the doctors could wait a while for payment of the full amount of their bills. During the course of his presentation, Respondent utilized a document called a National States Limited Medical-Surgical Hospital Confinement Plan which purportedly outlined the specifics of policy coverage. Under that portion entitled "Specific Benefits", the form read, "This policy pays percent of usual and customary expenses of the following type:". Under the blank space, in smaller type, were the numbers "10, 20, 30, 40". In the blank area, Respondent, by hand, inserted 80 percent. Above, and to the right of that insertion, he also placed the numbers, "100 percent" and "40 percent." Respondent explains this as being his attempt to provide answers to questions asked of him by Mrs. Sprague. He noted that his company does not offer a major medical policy such as desired by the Spragues, and that the only way he could provide coverage close to that which they wanted was to combine policies. Using a yellow highlighter, he also highlighted the words, "Doctor's charges", "doctor's office", "clinic", "hospital", "home", and "surgical or medical center." He also highlighted the terms "annual mammography screening" because Mrs. Sprague had specifically inquired about coverage of that procedure. On that visit, Respondent sold the Spragues two policies each. These were "MSH-1" and "MSH-2" policies which, the Spragues recall, Respondent indicated would provide the total coverage they wanted. Initially, the premium was to be $3,600.00 for the year, but when the Spragues indicated they could not afford that much, after calling his office, Respondent was able to offer them 6 months coverage for one half the price. They were satisfied with this and accepted the policies. Mr. Rinker received as his commission 45 percent of the premium paid in by the Spragues for the first year of the policy. When he departed the Spragues' home, he left with them the policy outline he utilized in his presentation, a large manila envelope containing information regarding his office hours and phone number, and a MSP form required by law. The coverage was not heavily used at first. When, during the first six month period, claims were initially denied because of the waiting period, the Spragues accepted that. After the expiration of the waiting period, all claims submitted for doctors' visits and mammography were covered to at least 80 percent of the amount expected by the Spragues. This was, however, because of the combined benefits paid by the two policies. Neither policy, alone, paid 100 percent percent of the claim. The Spragues were satisfied with this because it was not hospitalization. Later on, however, it became apparent that Mr. Sprague would have to enter the hospital for coronary bypass surgery, and he was admitted on an emergency basis. Before the surgery was done, however, the Spragues wanted to be sure the hospital bills would be paid in full, and they had their daughter- in-law, who had extensive experience in the insurance business prior to that time, to examine the policies. Her review of the policies generated some questions in her mind as to whether they provided 100 percent coverage of all hospital costs. To satisfy herself and her in-laws, utilizing the telephone number for Respondent on the materials left by him with the Spragues, she contacted him and asked, specifically, whether the policies he had sold to the Spragues, provided the 100 percent coverage they desired. His answer was somewhat evasive and non- responsive to her inquiry. He said, "Don't worry. She'll [Ms. Sprague] be able to sleep at night. She has a good policy." This did not satisfy either Ms. Sprague or her mother-in-law, and so she called Respondent again. During this second conversation he admitted that for at least a part of the cost, there was a 40 percent coinsurance provision. Respondent claims that during these calls, Ms. Sprague did not tell him that her father-in-law was to have surgery but only told him about tests. The tests were covered and the bills therefor paid by National States. By the time of these calls, however, Mr. Sprague was already in the hospital and facing the surgery the following morning. There was little that could be done. Mr. Sprague wanted to cancel the surgery but his wife would not allow this and the operation was accomplished. The hospital bills received by the Spragues amounted to approximately $140,000. Of this, the insurance company paid approximately $18,000. Ultimately, the Spragues and the hospital were able to reach an agreement for settlement of the obligation for $40,000. In order to satisfy this, Mr. Sprague was required to liquidate all his investments. He still owes the doctors a substantial sum but is making periodic payments to liquidate those obligations. The policies which Respondent sold to the Spragues were limited medical and surgical expense policies which pay only a limited percentage of incurred medical expenses over a limited period of time. Neither policy pays 100 percent of any medical or surgical expense. Respondent did not clearly communicate this fact to the Spragues. They suffered from the misconception that the policies sold to them by the Respondent paid 100 percent coverage for hospital expense, 80 percent for doctor fees, and 40 percent for medication. Petitioner presented no evidence that what Respondent did was below the standards accepted of sales agents within the health insurance industry. On the other hand, James Quinn, an insurance agent since 1975, who has taught life and health insurance and the legal responsibility of agents in the health insurance area with the approval of the Department since 1985, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Quinn noted that there are three types of medical policies in use, including basic medical expense, major medical, and comprehensive major medical. The first of these, basic medical expense, permits liberal underwriting and pays policy limits. In Mr. Quinn's opinion, based on the age and preexisting conditions that the Sprague's have, major medical coverage, like they wanted, would cost between seven and ten thousand dollars annually, excluding deductibles. Health insurance coverage outlines, such as used by Respondent in his presentation to the Spragues are, according to Mr. Quinn, reasonably self-explanatory and are left with the insured either when the policy is applied for or is delivered. In the former case, the client is able to read the outline and cancel the policy before delivery, if he so desires. In the latter case, the insured has a set number of days to read the policy after delivery and cancel if he so desires. These outlines do not substitute for the policy, however, and generally, the agent prefers to deliver the policy personally so he can go over it again with the insured. According to Mr. Quinn, it is difficult to explain coverage to prospective insureds because of their unfamiliarity with the terminology and the available benefits. He concluded that the action of the Respondent, in issue here, whereby he used the coverage outline to explain the coverages to the Spragues, was consistent with proper agent conduct and was within industry standards. He also concluded that based on what Respondent had available to sell to the Spragues, he sold them the best package he could, at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this matter finding Respondent, Richard Michael Rinker, guilty of a violation of Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6); 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(a)(1), (1)(e)(1), and (1)(k)(1), Florida statutes, and suspending his license as a health insurance agent for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0089 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to finding Mr. Quinn is an expert regarding insurance standards and business practices, but rejected as insinuating those opinions are binding on the Hearing Officer. Rejected notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Quinn. Accepted, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. Second sentence accepted as to the furnishing, but the quality of the information was less than clear. Balance accepted. & 8. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the School Board of Broward County's award of a contract for Excess General and Auto Liability insurance coverage to United National Insurance Company is barred because of illegality?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ranger Insurance Company, Petitioner, is the holder of a Certificate of Authority dated September 9, 1996 and issued by the Department of Insurance and Bill Nelson, Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer. Good through June 1, 1997, the certificate authorizes Ranger to write in a number of lines of insurance business, including, Private Passenger Auto Liability, Commercial Automobile Liability, Private Passenger Automobile Auto Physical Damage, Commercial Auto Physical Damage and Other Liability. As such, Ranger is an "authorized" or "admitted" insurer in the State of Florida. L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., is a joint venture and co- petitioner with Ranger in this proceeding through whom Ranger proposed to procure the Excess General and Auto Liability (“Excess GL/AL”) coverage. A timely proposal under Request for Proposal 97- 072S was submitted to the School Board of Broward County by the petitioners to provide the Excess GL/AL Insurance Coverage sought by the RFP. United National Insurance Company is an "eligible" surplus lines insurer, approved by the Florida Department of Insurance to transact all surplus lines coverages in the State of Florida and licensed as such. The Department has notified insurance agents of United Nation's eligibility as a surplus lines insurer since 1978. It is the insurer of the Excess General and Excess Auto Liability insurance coverage awarded by the School Board under RFP 97-072S. Arthur J. Gallagher & Company ("Gallagher,") is the eighth largest insurance broker in the world. It has four sales offices, nine service offices, and approximately 150 employees in the State of Florida alone. The office from which it conducted business related to this proceeding is in Boca Raton, Florida, an office for which Area President David L. Marcus is responsible. Gallagher submitted a timely proposal (the "Gallagher proposal,") in response to the RFP on behalf of United National. The School Board of Broward County is the authority that operates, controls, and supervises all free public schools in the Broward County School District, "[i]n accordance with the provisions of s. (4)(b) of Article IX of the State Constitution ...". Section 230.03(2), F.S. In accord with its powers, the School Board may contract directly to purchase insurance. It is not required by its purchasing rules to use a competitive bidding or procurement process to purchase insurance. Nonetheless, on Friday, April 26, 1996, it issued a request for proposals, the RFP at issue in this proceeding, for insurance coverages including for Excess GL/AL insurance coverages. Siver Insurance Management Consultants Siver Insurance Management Consultants ("Siver,") are the drafters of RFP 97-072S. The School Board relied on Siver to draft the RFP, particularly its technical sections. Technical review of the proposals made under the RFP was conducted by Siver. And Siver put together for the School Board's use a summary of the policies proposed by both United National and Ranger. The summary was considered by the School Board's Evaluation Committee when it evaluated the competing proposals. The determination of whether the competing proposers were properly licensed was made by Siver. The School Board's Evaluation Committee, indeed the School Board, itself, played no role in determining the licensing credentials of the proposers while the proposals were under consideration. Under the arrangement between Siver and the School Board, however, the School Board retained the primary responsibility for administering the RFP. The RFP Request for Proposal 97-072S was mailed to 324 vendors (prospective proposers) the same day as its issuance, April 26, 1996. None of the vendors knew the contents of the RFP until it was issued. The RFP sought proposals for seven coverages, each of which was severable from the remainder of the coverages and was allowed to be proposed separately. The scope of the request was described in the RFP as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida ... is seeking proposals for various insurance coverages and risk management services. To facilitate distribution of the underwriting data and the requirements for each of the coverages, this consolidated Request for Proposals ... has been prepared. However, each of the coverages is severable and may be proposed separately. The following are included: Boiler & Machinery Excess General and Automobile Liability Excess Workers' Compensation School Leaders Errors & Omissions Crime Including Employee Dishonesty - Faithful Performance, Depositor's Forgery Claim and Risk Management Services (Including Managed Care Services) Statutory Death Benefits Petitioner's Ex. 1, pg. I-1. Since the seven coverages are severable and no proposer had to submit a proposal on all seven coverages, one way of looking at RFP 97-072S is as a consolidated RFP composed of seven, separate proposals, each for a different type of insurance coverage. Of the 324 vendors to whom the RFP was sent, only two, Gallagher, on behalf of United National, and Ranger, through the action of the joint venture, submitted proposals with respect to the Excess GL/AL coverages. Reasons for Using an RFP The School Board, under the auspices of Siver, chose to seek insurance coverage through an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid, or what is colloquially referred to as a "straight bid," for a number of reasons. As one familiar with RFPs and Invitations to Bid might expect, the School Board and Siver were attracted to the RFP by the increased flexibility it offered in the ultimate product procured in comparison to the potentially less flexible product that would be procured through an invitation to bid. More pertinent to this case, however, Siver chose to use an RFP for the School Board in this case because "as explained ... by the Department of Insurance over the ... years, while there may... [be a] prohibition against any surplus lines agents submitting a straight bid, there would not be a prohibition against a ... [surplus lines] agent responding to a request for proposal " (Tr. 149.) The RFP approach was not chosen, however, in order to avoid any legal requirement or to circumvent the Insurance Code. As explained by Mr. Marshall, the approach was born of hard reality: Id. [O]ne of the primary motivations [for using an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid] was to allow us [The School Board and Siver] to consider surplus lines companies because of the fact that very often they were the only insurers that would respond on the number of coverages and clients that we were working for. The Insurance Code and the Surplus Lines Law The Insurance Code in Section 624.401, Florida Statutes, requires generally that an insurer be authorized by the Department of Insurance (the "Department,") to transact business in the State of Florida before it does so: (1) No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to the insurer by the department, except as to such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in this code. One place in the code where transactions are "expressly otherwise provided for ...," is in the Surplus Lines Law, Section 626.913 et seq., Florida Statues. The purposes of the law are described as follows: It is declared that the purposes of the Surplus Lines Law are to provide for orderly access for the insuring public of this state to insurers not authorized to transact insurance in this state, through only qualified, licensed, and supervised surplus lines agents resident in this state, for insurance coverages and to the extent thereof not procurable from authorized insurers, who under the laws of this state must meet certain standards as to policy forms and rates, from unwarranted competition by unauthorized insurers who, in the absence of this law, would not be subject to similar requirements; and for other purposes as set forth in this Surplus Lines Law. Section 626.913(2), F.S. Surplus lines insurance is authorized in the first instance only if coverages cannot be procured from authorized insurers: If certain insurance coverages of subjects resident, located, or to be performed in this state cannot be procured from authorized insurers, such coverages, hereinafter designated "surplus lines," may be procured from unauthorized insurers, subject to the following conditions: The insurance must be eligible for export under s. 626.916 or s. 626.917; The insurer must be an eligible surplus lines insurer under s. 626.917 or s. 626.918; The insurance must be so placed through a licensed Florida surplus lines agent; and The other applicable provisions of this Surplus Lines Law must be met. Section 626.915, Florida Statutes, and then only subject to certain other conditions: No insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets all of the following conditions: The full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state ... . Surplus lines agents must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring a properly documented statement of diligent effort from the retail or producing agent. However, to be in compliance with the diligent effort requirement, the surplus lines agent's reliance must be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the risk. Reasonableness shall be assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by-risk basis. It is not possible to obtain the full amount of insurance required by layering the risk, it is permissible to export the full amount. Section 626.916, F.S. Authorized vs. Unauthorized Insurers Unlike authorized insurers, unauthorized insurers do not have their rates and forms approved by the Department of Insurance, (the "Department.") Similarly, unauthorized insurers are not member of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, which guarantees payment of claims if an insurer becomes insolvent. Unauthorized insurers may qualify to transact Florida insurance business under the Surplus Lines Law and so, for purposes of the Surplus Lines Law, be considered "eligible" to transact surplus lines business in Florida. When a Surplus Lines insurer is eligible, Department of Insurance employees refer to the insurer in Surplus Lines terms as "authorized," a term in everyday English that is synonymous with "eligible." But an eligible surplus lines insurer remains an "unauthorized" insurer when compared to an "authorized" insurer for purposes of the Insurance Code and that part of the code known as the Surplus Lines Law. Submission and Review of Proposals Both L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., (the "Joint Venture") and Gallagher submitted timely proposals with regard to Excess GL/AL coverage in response to the RFP. The Joint Venture's proposal was submitted, of course, on behalf of Ranger, an authorized insurer, and Gallagher's was submitted on behalf of United National, an insurer eligible to transact insurance in the State of Florida as a surplus lines insurer but otherwise an unauthorized insurer. The School Board's Insurance Evaluation Committee met on May 30, 1996, to evaluate proposals received pursuant to the RFP. Although briefly discussed by the Evaluation Committee, the issue of proper licensing was not determined independently by the committee. Instead of making that determination, the committee turned to its insurance consultant, Siver. Siver had determined that both proposers, Ranger and United National, were properly licensed for purposes of responding to the RFP and being considered by the committee. Siver communicated that determination to the committee. The committee relied on Siver's determination. Aside from receiving Siver's determination of proper licensing when "briefly discussed" (Tr. 108,) the Evaluation Committee did not address whether either Ranger or United National were properly licensed. Certainly, no issue of whether Ranger should take precedence over United National by virtue that it was an authorized insurer when United National was an unauthorized insurer and a mere eligible Surplus Lines insurer was ever discussed by the committee. In evaluating the proposals, the Committee awarded 73 points to the Gallagher proposal and 69 points to the Ranger proposal. Points were awarded on the basis of three criteria or in three categories: Qualifications (20 points maximum); Scope of Coverages/Services Offered (30 points maximum); and, Points for Projected Costs (50 points maximum.) The Ranger proposal outscored the Gallagher proposal in the "projected cost" category, 50 to 23, but it scored lower in the "qualifications" category, 14 versus 20 for Gallagher, and significantly lower in the "scope of coverages" category, five points versus 30 for Gallagher. The United National coverage was more than twice as costly as Ranger's, a $491,000 annual premium as opposed to Ranger's $226,799, which explains the points awarded in the "projected cost" category. The Gallagher proposal received more points than the Ranger proposal in the "qualifications" category because United National has provided the School Board with Excess GL/AL coverage for a number of years and Ranger has never provided the School Board with such coverage. The Ranger proposal fell so drastically short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/services offered" category primarily because of an athletic participation exclusion appearing in a rider to the specimen policy appearing in its proposal. Ranger had intended to cover athletic participation and the rider was included with the Ranger proposal in error. Ranger notified the School Board of its intent immediately after the tabulations were released. Nonetheless, the Evaluation Committee was never informed of the error and no attempt was made by the School Board to negotiate with Ranger to improve the coverages offered, despite authority in the RFP for the School Board to negotiate with any of the proposers. (The language used in the RFP is "with one or more" of the proposers.) The Ranger proposal also fell short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/service offered" category because the Gallagher proposal was made in several ways. One way was as to only Excess GL/AL coverage. Another way included School Leaders' Errors and Omissions ("E & O") coverage. The E & O coverage was offered by United National in the Gallagher proposal together with the Excess GL/AL coverage in a "combined lines" package, similar to United National coverages already existing for the School Board. Furthermore, the Ranger proposal expressly excluded coverage for Abuse and Molestation, a needed coverage due to the School Board's prior claims history. On June 5, 1996, the Evaluation Committee submitted its recommendations to the School Board's Purchasing Department. With regard to GL/AL coverage, the Evaluation Committee recommended the purchase of the GL/AL/E & O "combined lines" coverage offered by Gallagher through United National. The School Board posted its Proposal Recommendation/Tabulations adopting the recommendation, two days later, on June 7, 1996. Ranger Seeks Redress from the Department Following the School Board's award, Ranger, thinking that it should have received the award under the RFP as the only authorized insurer to submit a proposal for Excess GL/AL coverage, sought redress from the Department. On June 14, 1996, Ranger personnel met with the head of the Department's Surplus Lines Section, Carolyn Daniels, alleging a violation of the Insurance Code's Surplus Lines Law. On June 18, 1996, Ranger reiterated its complaint in writing and asked Ms. Daniels to find a violation that day. On June 24, 1996, Ranger, now through its attorneys, met with Ms. Daniels and her supervisor. Again, on July 4, 1996, Ranger's attorneys wrote to Ms. Daniels, further pleading for her to find a violation and asking for an administrative hearing if Ms. Daniels did not find in favor of the Ranger position. On a fifth attempt, Ranger wrote Ms. Daniels on July 11, 1996, requesting that she adopt Ranger's position. Ms. Daniels reviewed Ranger's five complaints with her supervisor, the Chief of the Bureau of Property and Casualty Solvency and Market Conduct. In a letter dated August 14, 1996, to the School Board's Purchasing Agent, Ms. Daniels announced her determination: I did not find any evidence to indicate that Mr. David L. Marcus of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company or United National Insurance Company violated the Surplus Lines Law in providing a quote for the School Board. Intervenor's Ex. No. 2. Ms. Daniel's determination was based on a number of factors, including the School Board's position in the transaction as an "informed consumer," (Tr. 422-423,) and that the School Board had possessed a United National policy for 13 years. But, the determination was primarily based on the fact that Gallagher had received three declinations from authorized insurers to provide Excess GL/AL coverage and so had performed that which was required prior to deciding that the coverage was eligible for export and provision by a surplus lines insurer: due diligence. Due Diligence Section 626.916(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, [n]o insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets ... the following condition[]: ... [t]he full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state, and the amount of insurance exported shall be only the excess over the amount so procurable from authorized insurers. (e.s.) The statute goes on to require that the diligent effort, "be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the export of that particular risk." Reasonableness is assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by- risk basis. Section 626.916(1)(a), F.S. "'Diligent effort' means seeking coverage from and having been rejected by at least three authorized insurers currently writing this type of coverage and documenting these rejections." Section 626.914(4), F.S. Under this definition, the "producing agent should contact at least three companies that are actually writing the types of clients and the business in the area [that they are] wanting to write." (Tr. 268.) A specific form to help insurance agents document their three rejections is adopted by Department rule. The rule provides: When placing coverage with an eligible surplus lines insurer, the surplus lines agent must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring from the retail or producing agent a properly documented statement of diligent effort on form DI4-1153 (7/94), "Statement of Diligent Effort", which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. Rule 4J-5.003(1), F.A.C. Fully aware of the requirement for documentation of diligent effort to find authorized insurers, and cognizant that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer could be found based on experience, Gallagher began soliciting proposals for coverage in the middle of April, 1996, several weeks before the School Board had issued the RFP. In fact, at the time that Gallagher started soliciting bids, the School Board had not yet assembled or distributed the underwriting data needed by bidders. Nonetheless, with good reason based on experience, Gallagher expected that the School Board would seek a "combined lines" package of GL/AL/E & O coverages like the School Board then received through United National, and that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer would step forward to propose coverage. Gallagher, therefore, used the policy form current in April of 1996, that is the form providing Excess GL/AL/E & O coverage in a "combined lines" package, "as an example of what the School Board had been looking for this type of program and seeking a program similar to that and similar in coverage." (Tr. 242.) But it also sought Excess GL/AL without combination with E & O coverage. As Mr. Marcus testified, when seeking coverage from authorized insurers beginning in April of 1996, Gallagher "would be looking at a variety of different ways, whether they were package or not." (Tr. 243.) One authorized insurer, Zurich-American, declined to quote because it could not offer a combined line SIR program (a package of excess general liability and excess auto liability coverages) as requested by the RFP. Furthermore, the School Board risk was too large for Zurich-American to handle. A second authorized insurer, American International Group, declined to quote due to the School Board's adverse loss experience. A third authorized insurer, APEX/Great American, declined to provide a quote to Gallagher due to the large size of the School Board account. The responses of these three authorized insurers were listed in a Statement of Diligent Effort provided to Ms. Daniels, which she considered in determining that Gallagher and Mr. Marcus had committed no violation of the Surplus Lines Law. Gallagher also provided Ms. Daniels with a second Statement of Diligent Effort. The statement documented the attempt to attract quotes by adding a school leaders errors and omission component to the Excess GL/AL coverage. It, too, was used by Ms. Daniels in making her determination of no violation of the Surplus Lines Law by Gallagher. The same three insurers refused to quote for the "combined lines" program. Attempts by other Authorized Insurers Gallagher requested that any responses to its requests for quotes be submitted by May 10, 1996, so that it could prepare and submit its proposal by the RFP's deadline for submission of original proposals by all vendors, 2:00 p.m. May 16, 1996. One insurer, Discover Re/USF&G attempted to submit a quote on May 15, 1996, one day before the RFP deadline but five days after May 10. By then, Gallagher had already started printing its 625 page proposal. Furthermore, the company failed to provide the required policy forms until the day after the School Board's deadline for filing proposals. Coregis Insurance Company offered coverage of up to $700,000 for each claim and for each occurrence, but like Discover Re/USF&G, failed to provide the required policy forms until after the RFP deadline. Furthermore, definitive coverage under the Coregis policy would only be provided on the condition that the Florida Legislature pass a Legislative Claims bill, a limiting condition not authorized in the RFP or requested by Gallagher. American Home Assurance Company never responded to Gallagher with the School Board's required quote or policy forms. Rather, the company merely provided an "indication" that the company declined to provide a quote. An "indication" consists of an approximate premium rate, without any terms or conditions. A "quote," on the other hand, includes the terms and conditions of a policy. The Department places with the producing agent the responsibility of determining whether an insurer's communication constitutes and "indication" or a "quote." An agent, according to Ms. Daniels, can only violate the Surplus Lines Law if the agent receives a reliable quote. Gallagher even requested a quote from Ranger, despite never having been appointed to transact insurance on its behalf. But Ranger declined. In response to a request by Gallagher's minority business partner, McKinley Financial Services, Ranger, through E. Michael Hoke on American E & S letterhead, wrote in a letter dated May 6, 1996, "[w]e have received a prior submission on this account so we are returning the attached." Intervenor's Ex. No. 7. The Petition Ranger's petition for formal administrative hearing is the letter dated June 19, 1996, to the Director of Purchasing for the School Board under the signature of E. Michael Hoke, CPCU, Assistant Vice President of AES/Ranger Insurance Company. The letter asks its readers to "bear[] in mind we are not attorneys," p. 1 of the letter, before it outlines three protest issues. The third protest issue is the one about which Ms. Daniels made her determination that no violation of the statute had been committed by Gallagher or its employees: "3) Florida Statute 626.901 (Representing or aiding unauthorized insurer prohibited)." The other two issues deal not with the propriety of Gallagher's actions but the legality of the School Board's award to an unauthorized insurer, United National, when coverage was available from an authorized insurer, Ranger: Florida Statute 626.913 (Surplus Lines Law). . . Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer ... Its proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested coverage was procurable. United National Insurance Company is an unauthorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida ... . The United National Insurance Company proposal and/or its offer to extend it's current policies appear to us as "unwarranted competition." Ranger Insurance Company is protected from unwarranted competition from United National Insurance Company in accordance with the Florida Statute 626.913. Florida Statute 626.913 (Eligibility for Export) ... Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida. ... It's proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested amounts were available. The proposal and/or contract extensions offered by United National are for the full amount of coverage sought and not excess over the amount procurable from Ranger, an authorized insurer. The petition, therefore, set in issue not just whether Gallagher acted illegally but whether the School Board acted illegally when it made the award to United National, an unauthorized insurer when Ranger, an authorized insurer, had also submitted a proposal. Extension As soon as the School Board was made aware of the Ranger protest, it extended the existing insurance contracts procured under RFP 92-080S, awarded approximately five years earlier. The extension was on a month-to-month basis until resolution of the protest. The extension was necessary to avoid a lapse in the School Board's coverage during this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the award to United National under the Gallagher proposal in response to RFP 97-072S be rescinded. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the School Board Attorney K.C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue - 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 A. Kenneth Levine, Esquire Blank, Risby and Meenan, P.A. Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Dr. Frank Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Amjad Shamim, is eligible for continuation coverage of health insurance and reimbursement, under the State of Florida Employees Group Insurance Plan, for medical care expenses he incurred after he left state employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Shamim became a full-time employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in September, 1986, and worked at the Palm Beach County Health Department. Effective August 1, 1987, Mr. Shamim was insured with family coverage under the State of Florida, Employee Group Health Insurance Program. His enrollment continued until his insurance termination effective date of January 1, 1989. On November 15, 1988, Mr. Shamim met with Martina L. Walker, Personnel Technician I for HRS at the Palm Beach County Health Department, in connection with his decision to leave the Department's employ on November 18, 1988. At that meeting he executed the documents required by HRS to discontinue his health insurance coverage. As part of that November 15, 1988, conference, Martina Walker informed Mr. Shamim of his rights to continued health insurance coverage after his termination of employment. Mr. Shamim advised Ms. Walker that he no longer needed the State coverage because his new employer offered a health insurance plan to its employees. Ms. Walker, nonetheless, cautioned Mr. Shamim that any pre-existing conditions are usually not covered by new employer policies. Ms. Walker's notification of Mr. Shamim's right to continued health insurance coverage for up to 18 months was not in writing. Mrs. Walker never told Mr. Shamim orally the specifics of continuation coverage, i.e., that he had 60 days to elect continuation coverage from the coverage effective date of January 1, 1989, that his application and premium were required to be postmarked by March 1, 1989; or that he could continue his family coverage for 18 months at monthly premium of $273.01 per month. In addition to disclosures when an employee leaves, all employees of the Palm Beach County Health Department are advised of their opportunity to elect continuation coverage under the State Plan at the time of their employment, by means of a notice furnished by HRS. Mr. Shamim received a general notice of benefits, including the availability of post employment continuation coverage, at the time of his employment. The termination form completed by Ms. Walker was processed routinely, and caused the Division of State Employee Insurance to mail Mr. Shamim written notification by first class mail of the availability of continuation coverage in a letter dated December 1, 1988. Due to the appearance of the handwritten address on the notice mailed to Mr. Shamim, it is more likely than not that this notice failed to arrive at Mr. Shamim's home address. The portion of the address for the apartment number could be read as D201 or 2201, which would account for misdirection of the notice in the mail. Mr. Shamim's claim that he did not receive the notification is accepted. Had the notice been properly addressed and had he received it, Mr. Shamim would have had the opportunity to decide whether to exercise his legal right to continue his health insurance. On January 27, 1989, Mr. Shamim had surgery to his hand. He had been treated for that condition while he was employed with the Palm Beach County Health Department. Because it was deemed to be a pre-existing condition, the expense he incurred of almost $4,000 was not covered under the health insurance policy of his new employer. There is no evidence of the length of time the pre- existing condition exclusion in the policy offered by Mr. Shamim's new employer lasts. Mr. Shamim first notified HRS of his desire for post termination health insurance coverage on September 19, 1989. A second request was made on November 7, 1989. Finding no success with HRS, Mr. Shamim contacted the Respondent on December 29, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered accepting the request of Mr. Shamim for continuation coverage, accepting his premiums and processing his claim. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of November, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 11th day of November, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners’ Interim Rate Request (IRR) for an increase should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency of state government responsible for the implementation and administration of the Medicaid Program in the State of Florida. AHCA is authorized to audit Medicaid Cost Reports submitted by Medicaid Providers participating in the Medicaid Program. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud are licensed nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid Program as institutional Medicaid Providers. On May 23, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville entered into a settlement agreement with the representative of the estate of one of its former residents, D. P. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at Jacksonville would pay $350,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at Jacksonville paid the personal representative the sum of $350,000.00. By letter dated July 16, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville requested an IRR effective August 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.2., for additional costs incurred from self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at Jacksonville submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the costs exceeded $5,000.00 and that the increase in cost was projected at $2.77/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at Jacksonville was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,627.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated July 18, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of Section IV J. of the Plan, necessary and proper for granting the request. Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Subsequently, Avante at Jacksonville became concerned that, perhaps, the incorrect provision of the Plan had been cited in its IRR. As a result, a second IRR was submitted for the same costs. By letter dated October 22, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville made a second request for an IRR, this time pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.3., for the same additional costs incurred from the self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 settlement. The same supporting documentation was included. Avante at Jacksonville was of the opinion that the Plan Section IV J.3. specifically dealt with the costs of general and professional liability insurance. By letter dated October 30, 2007, AHCA denied the second request for an IRR, indicating that the first request was denied based on “all sub-sections of Section IV J of the Plan”; that the second request failed to satisfy the requirements of the Plan Section IV J.3. and all sections and sub-sections of the Plan “necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. On October 19, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud entered a settlement agreement with the personal representative of the estate of one of its former residents, G. M. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at St. Cloud would pay $90,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at St. Cloud paid the personal representative the sum of $90,000.00. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud requested an IRR effective November 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J, for additional costs incurred as a result of paying the $90,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at St. Cloud submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the increase in cost was projected at $2.02/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at St. Cloud was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,000.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated December 12, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of “Section IV J of the Plan necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at St. Cloud contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Insurance Policies and the Nursing Home Industry in Florida Typically, nursing homes in Florida carry low limit general and professional liability insurance policies. The premiums of the policies exceed the policy limits. For example, the premium for a policy of Avante at Jacksonville to cover the $350,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $425,000.00 and for a policy of Avante at St. Cloud to cover the $90,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $200,000.00. Also, the policies have a funded reserve feature wherein, if the reserve is depleted through the payment of a claim, the nursing home is required to recapitalize the reserve or purchase a new policy. That is, if a policy paid a settlement up to the policy limits, the nursing home would have to recapitalize the policy for the amount of the claim paid under the policy and would have to fund the loss, which is the amount in excess of the policy limits, out-of-pocket. Florida’s Medicaid Reimbursement Plan for Nursing Homes The applicable version of the Plan is Version XXXI. AHCA has incorporated the Plan in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. AHCA uses the Plan in conjunction with the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB.15-1)3 to calculate reimbursement rates of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The calculation of reimbursement rates uses a cost- based, prospective methodology, using the prior year’s costs to establish the current period per diem rates. Inflation factors, target ceilings, and limitations are applied to reach a per patient, per day per diem rate that is specific to each nursing home. Reimbursement rates for nursing homes and long-term care facilities are typically set semi-annually, effective on January 1 and July 1 of each year. The most recent Medicaid cost report is used to calculate a facility’s reimbursement rate and consists of various components, including operating costs, the direct patient care costs, the indirect patient care costs, and property costs. The Plan allows for the immediate inclusion of costs in the per diem rate to Medicaid Providers under very limited circumstances through the IRR process. The interim rate’s purpose is to compensate for the shortfalls of a prospective reimbursement system and to allow a Medicaid Provider to increase its rate for sudden, unforeseen, dramatic costs beyond the Provider’s control that are of an on-going nature. Importantly, the interim rate change adjusts the Medicaid Provider’s individual target rate ceiling to allow those costs to flow ultimately through to the per diem paid, which increases the amount of the Provider’s overall reimbursement. In order for a cost to qualify under an interim rate request, the cost must be an allowable cost and meet the criteria of Section IV J of the Plan. The Plan provides in pertinent part: IV. Standards * * * J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem rate. If new State or Federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure and certification requirements, or new interpretations of existing laws, rules, regulations, or licensure and certification requirements require providers to make changes that result in increased or decreased patient care, operating, or capital costs, requests for component interim rates shall be considered for each provider based on the budget submitted by the provider. All providers’ budgets submitted shall be reviewed by the Agency [AHCA] and shall be the basis for establishing reasonable cost parameters. In cases where new State or Federal requirements are imposed that affect all providers, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the class ceilings to account for changes in costs caused by the new requirements effective as of the date of the new requirements or implementation of the new requirements, whichever is later. Interim rate adjustments shall be granted to reflect increases in the cost of general or professional liability insurance for nursing homes if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem. CMS-PUB.15-1 provides in pertinent part: 2160. Losses Arising From Other Than Sale of Assets A. General.—A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider’s financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self- insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. Where a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider as a result of such losses may not be included in allowable costs. * * * 2160.2 Liability Losses.—Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Insurance against a provider’s liability for such payments to others would include, for example, automobile liability insurance; professional liability (malpractice, negligence, etc.); owners, landlord and tenants liability; and workers’ compensation. Any settlement negotiated by the provider or award resulting from a court or jury decision of damages paid by the provider in excess of the limits of the provider’s policy, as well as the reasonable cost of any legal assistance connected with the settlement or award are includable in allowable costs, provided the provider submits evidence to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage carried by the provider at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. Also, the reasonable cost of insurance protection, as well as any losses incurred because of the application of the customary deductible feature of the policy, are includable in allowable costs. As to whether a cost is allowable, the authority to which AHCA would look is first to the Plan, then to CMS-PUB.15- 1, and then to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As to reimbursement issues, AHCA would look to the same sources in the same order for the answer. The insurance liability limit levels maintained by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud reflect sound and prudent management practices. Claims that resulted in the settlements of Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud, i.e., wrongful death and/or negligence, are the type of claims covered under the general and professional liability policies carried by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both had a general and professional liability insurance policy in full force and effect at the time the wrongful death and/or negligence claims were made that resulted in the settlement agreements. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud filed a claim with their insurance carrier, even though they could have, for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both chose not to file a claim with their respective insurance carrier for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. AHCA did not look beyond the Plan in making its determination that neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud should be granted an IRR. Wesley Hagler, AHCA’s Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, testified as an expert in Medicaid cost reimbursement. He testified that settlement agreements are a one time cost and are not considered on-going operating costs for purposes of Section IV J.2. of the Plan. Mr. Hagler’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Hagler testified that settlement agreements and defense costs are not considered general and professional liability insurance for purposes of Section IV J.3. of the Plan. To the contrary, Stanley William Swindling, Jr., an expert in health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, testified that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs. Mr. Swindling’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Hagler’s testimony, and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs.4 Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted any documentation with their IRRs to indicate a specific law, statute, or rule, either state or federal, with which they were required to comply, resulted in an increase in costs. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud experienced an increase in the premiums for the general and professional liability insurance policies. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted documentation with its IRRs to indicate that the premiums of its general and professional liability insurance increased. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud could only meet the $5,000.00 threshold and the one percent increase in total per diem under the Plan, Sections IV J.2. or J.3. by basing its calculations on the settlement costs. Looking to the Plan in conjunction with CMS-PUB.15-1 to determine reimbursement costs, CMS-PUB.15-1 at Section 2160A provides generally that, when a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider, as a result of such losses, are not allowable costs; however, Section 2160.2 specifically includes settlement dollars in excess of the limits of the policy as allowable costs, provided the evidence submitted by the provider to the intermediary (AHCA) shows to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. The policy coverage for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud set the policy limits for each facility at $10,000.00 for each occurrence. Applying the specific section addressing settlement negotiations, the loss covered by insurance would have been $10,000.00 for each facility and the losses in excess of the policy limits--$340,000.00 for Avante at Jacksonville and $80,000.00 for Avante at St. Cloud—would have been allowable costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the interim rate requests for an increase for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2008. 1/ The corrected case-style.
The Issue Whether 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 in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
