The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Findings Of Fact 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 The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure as a life agent, a life and health agent, a general lines agent, a health agent and a dental health care contract salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and regulation of the insurance industry in this state. Respondent, Michael Charles Peppe was and is currently licensed and eligible for licensure in Florida as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, a general lines agent and a health insurance agent. He was an officer and director of M. Peppe Agency, Inc., a Florida corporation. During the period in issue herein, Respondent's agency had a brokerage agreement with William Sanner and Mary Lou Sanner who were employed as sub- agents. Constance Abraham, an 85 year old widow first met William Sanner when she moved to Ft. Lauderdale, some 20 or so year ago. They were neighbors in the same apartment building. At that time she was insured with Mutual of Omaha and her policy was transferred to him, an agent for that company, for service. Over the years she purchased quite a bit of other insurance from him. They were all different kinds of health insurance policies and over time, she estimates, she purchased somewhere around 50 policies. During the period between 1985 and 1991, Mrs. Abraham purchased numerous health policies for both herself and her son through Mr. and Mrs. Sanner, though she does not recall ever having dealt with Mrs. Sanner. Records disclose that her coverage was placed with nine different companies and provided coverage in such areas as Medicare Supplement, nursing home insurance, cancer insurance, and hospital expense - indemnity insurance. Over the years approximately 60 policies were issued through Respondent's agency to either Mrs. Abraham or her son. The applications were taken by Sanner who would collect the initial premiums and forward both to Respondent's agency for processing to the various insurers. Some policies were signed by Sanner as agent of record and some were signed by Respondent in that capacity. Only a few were signed by Mrs. Sanner. Mrs. Abraham claims she didn't realize how much health insurance she had. Mr. Sanner would come to her apartment and talk to her about a new policy and she would abide by his advice. Her purchases amounted to approximately $20,000.00 per year in premiums which she would pay by check to Mr. Sanner. At no time did she ever deal with or meet the Respondent, Mr. Peppe. She did not question Sanner deeply about why he was selling her so much insurance. Whenever she asked about a new policy, he would usually have what appeared to he to be a good reason for it such as something was lacking in her coverage. Even when she recognized he was selling her duplicate coverage, he told her it was a good idea to have more. At no time did he or anyone else tell her she had too much insurance. Mrs. Abraham claims to know nothing about insurance herself. However, she was cognizant of the nature of the policies she had, utilizing without prompting the terms, "indemnity", "supplemental", and "accident." Mr. Sanner would come to her home at least once a month She trusted him to help her with her health insurance and would talk with him whenever a policy came up for renewal. On some occasions he would recommend she renew and on others would recommend she drop that policy in favor of another. At no time was she aware, however, of the fact that she was duplicating policies. She also claims she never had to tell Mr. Sanner what she wanted from her coverage. He always seemed to know and would handle not only the purchase of her policies but also the filing of her claims. She can recall no instance where she asked for any coverage and he tried to talk her out of it. Mrs. Abraham denies she was the person who complained to the Department. It was her daughter who noticed what was going on and took matters into her own hands. At no time did either Sanner or the Respondent attempt to contact her after the complaint was filed. Mrs. Abraham and her husband had four children. Her son, Lewis, who is somewhat retarded, lives with her and she also purchased some policies for him. Over the years she has had many occasions to file claims under her policies. It is important to her that she have protection to provide full time care if necessary because she has no family locally to provide that care for her. She had coverage that provided nursing care, a private room in the hospital, and some policies which provided for extended or nursing home care. She recognizes that such care is expensive and wanted enough policies to give her total coverage without out of pocket expense if the care was needed. She keeps track of the policies she has on her personal computer and has been doing so for some six or seven years. She apparently is sufficiently computer literate that she knows what she has and what she is doing. Mrs. Abraham owns a condominium at the Galt Ocean Mile apartment in Ft. Lauderdale. The $20,000.00 figure in policy premiums she mentioned were for her policies only. Those for her son were extra. She has sufficient income from stocks and bonds to pay her premiums, pay her mortgage, and still live comfortably. Her son has his own income from a trust fund and his own investments. At one point in time, when Mrs. Abraham had some recurring health problems and was in and out of hospitals regularly, she received in benefits far more than her actual expenses and made a tidy profit. Nonetheless, she adamantly disclaims she purchased the policies she had for that purpose claiming instead that she wanted merely that both she and her son be able to pay for the best medical care possible in the event it is needed. To that end, Lewis Abraham has filed very few claims against his carriers. Most, if not all, of the companies which provided the coverage for Mrs. Abraham and her son have limits on the amount of total coverage any one policy holder can have in any line of insurance. The limit is cumulative and not limited to policies with a specific company. Taken together, the policies in force for Mrs. Abraham in some cases exceeded that limit and had the insurers been made aware of the totality of her coverage, their policies would not have been issued. This information was not furnished to the companies, however, by either Sanner or Respondent. In addition, on many of the policies the mental condition of a policy holder must be disclosed if that person is retarded or not fully competent. Respondent did not know of Lewis' condition though Mr. Sanner was fully aware of it both as it related to his retardation and his drop foot. On none of the policy applications relating to him, however, was either ever mentioned. Some companies indicated that if Lewis's mental and physical condition had been properly disclosed on the application, they either would not have issued the coverage or, at least, would have referred the matter to the underwriter for further evaluation and a determination as to whether to issue the policy and if so, at what premium. Even more, Lewis' physical and mental condition may have caused the company to decline payment of a claim within two years of issuance of any policy actually written. Respondent received monthly statements from the various insurers with whom his agency did business detailing the transactions for that month. Commissions on each sale were paid by the insurers to Respondent's agency and thereafter, pursuant to an agreement between Respondent and Sanner, the commissions were divided. The commissions paid to Respondent's company by the insurers on all these policies amount to in excess of $18,000.00. Respondent asserts that Mrs. Abraham knew exactly what she was doing and was, in effect, conducting if not a scam, at least an improper business activity through the knowing purchase of duplicative policies and redundant coverage. This well may be true, but even if it is, Mr. Sanner was a knowing accomplice and participant. In addition, while it is accepted that Respondent might not know the status of every policy purchased through his agency or the total activity with any particular client, when his name appears as signatory on policy applications forwarded to a company for whom he accepts or solicits business, as here, it is hard to find he did not have at least a working familiarity with the business written by his sub-agents . This finding is supported by the analysis done of Respondent's pertinent activities here by Milton O. Bedingfield, a 39 year insurance agent and broker for 10 companies, a Certified Life Underwriter, and an expert in life and health insurance. Mr. Bedingfield concluded, after a review of all the policies written for the Abrahams through Respondent's agency, there was a gross oversale of policies and repeated omissions of pertinent information on policy applications. He found a duplication of benefits and overlapping coverage, all without legitimate purpose, especially for an 85 year old woman. Since the average hospital stay is less than 2 weeks, she would not likely benefit from her insurance for the stay. He could not see where Mrs. Abraham would get back in benefits what she has paid in premiums. In Mr. Bedingfield's opinion, this is the worst case of oversale he has seen in his 39 years in the insurance business. He contends the agent stands in almost a fiduciary capacity to his clients - especially the aged who rely on their agent to properly advise them on adequate coverage. There is often an element of fear involved that the unscrupulous agent can profit from. Here, he feels, Respondent's practice falls far short of the state's standard of acceptability on the sale of Medicare Supplemental insurance. On balance, however, Mr. Bedingfield does not know if all the policies he saw stayed in force throughout the period of the policy. Many could have lapsed or been cancelled. In all fairness, as well, where insurance is brokered, as here, the ultimate placing agent normally does not meet the client but must rely on what he is told by the offering agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this case, Michael C. Peppe, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1992, 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 11th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2708 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: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 22. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by evidence or record except for the fact that Respondent sign and processed applications and premium payments and received a financial benefit from the sales. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted so far as it relates Ms. Abraham was well informed and aware of her coverage. Not established, but insufficient evidence of actionable misconduct. Accepted. - 6. Not proper Findings of Fact but more Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Not a proper Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdrey 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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.
The Issue This case involves a dispute as to whether the Petitioner underpaid the premiums due on his health insurance coverage and, if so, what action should be taken by the Department of Administration as a result of any premium underpayments. By notice dated March 18, 1988, the Department of Administration notified the Petitioner that the Department records "show a total underpayment of $1,117.81 for the coverage periods 9/86 through 9/87." At the formal hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner, the Department was permitted to offer evidence regarding the Petitioner's premium history (both the amounts due and the amounts actually paid) for the entire period of the Petitioner's employment with the State of Florida, a period which runs from May 1978 until October 1988. At the formal hearing the Department of Administration presented the testimony of one witness and offered several exhibits, all of which were received. The Petitioner did not present any evidence, but did present oral argument on his own behalf. The parties were allowed 10 days from November 3, 1988, within which to file their post-hearing submissions with the Hearing Officer. The Department of Administration timely filed Proposed Findings Of Fact. Those findings are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order. The Petitioner did not file any post-hearing submission.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. From May 1, 1978, until August 1, 1978, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-insurance Plan. From November 1, 1978, until November 1, 1985, the Petitioner requested and received individual coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From November 1, 1985, until the date of the hearing, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From May 1, 198, until July 1, 1984, the Petitioner was a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .25 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .25 full-time equivalent position. From July 1, 1984, until at least the date of the hearing, the Petitioner has been a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .20 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .20 full-time equivalent position. During the period beginning May 1, 1988, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals S1,116.36. 1/ During the period beginning March 1, 1986, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $861.74. During the thirteen-month period beginning with September 1986 and ending with (but including) September 1987, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $258.36.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order to the following effect: Finding the Petitioner to be in debt to the State of Florida in the amount of $258.36 by reason of underpayment of premiums during the period of September 1986 through September 1987. Providing that the Petitioner's health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan will be cancelled unless within thirty (30) days following the entry of the final order the Petitioner either pays the full amount of $258.36 or enters into an installment payment program consistent with Rule 22K-1.049(1)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the State of Florida's group health insurance plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Judy Stahl began her employment with the State of Florida as a public assistance specialist with the Department of Children and Families on October 4, 1991. She began participating in the State's group health insurance program on December 1, 1991. Petitioner voluntarily terminated her employment by the State on November 28, 2002, for personal reasons. In her letter of resignation she stated that it was her intention to again seek employment with the State after the personal situation which caused her to resign was concluded. Premiums for the State's group health insurance are paid one month in advance. Therefore, Petitioner's coverage under the State's group health insurance program continued through the end of December 2002. In January 2003, the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner of her right to elect continuation coverage under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and the federal Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Petitioner so elected and continued her participation in the State's group health insurance under COBRA for the maximum period of 18 months that was available to her. Her continuation coverage expired June 30, 2004. In May 2004 the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner that her continuation coverage would soon expire and further advised her of her right to convert her insurance coverage to a private, individual policy. Petitioner exercised her option to convert to a private policy, effective July 1, 2004. In March 2005 the Florida Division of Retirement sent Petitioner an Estimate of Retirement Benefits. The Estimate contained the comment that: "As a result of a review of accounts for terminated members, it was determined that you are eligible for retirement benefits." The Estimate form was accompanied by a pamphlet explaining the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan. It was also accompanied by information on the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health plan. The retirement pamphlet included the information that health insurance was available to retirees; however, the health insurance information advised that health insurance was only available to certain retirees. Petitioner concluded that if she retired, she could obtain cheaper health insurance from the State than from her private provider. This was the first time that Petitioner considered the possibility of retirement. Petitioner thereafter made many telephone calls to the Department of Children and Families, to the Division of Retirement, to the Division of State Group Insurance, and to People First, inquiring about retirement and insurance. These telephone inquiries were the first time she mentioned to any State employee or representative that she was interested in retiring. At the end of March 2005 she made the decision to retire and submitted her application for retirement benefits. Her effective retirement date was April 1, 2005. At the time Petitioner filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in the State's group health insurance program. At the time she filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in continuation coverage pursuant to COBRA. She was insured under a private policy. At the time of her initial enrollment in the State group health insurance program, Petitioner signed a new enrollee form that, inter alia, advised her that eligibility and enrollment were governed by the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 22K-l. During her employment she also enrolled in supplemental dental insurance. That enrollment application form notified Petitioner that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the federal Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. Throughout her employment and at the time that she terminated her employment, she completed Annual Benefits Open Enrollment forms, which also notified her that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. While employed by the Department of Children and Families, Petitioner was provided with copies of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document. Those booklets describe eligibility for participation to include employees, certain retirees, and COBRA participants. They also describe termination of coverage due to termination of employment and describe continuation coverage and conversion coverage. At the time Petitioner retired, she was not a State employee; she was a former State employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner is not eligible to participate in the State's group health insurance program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Berkowitz, Esquire Mark J. Berkowitz, P.A. 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Tom Lewis, Jr., Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Department of Management Services properly denied medical insurance reimbursement to Petitioner, a covered dependent of a state employee insured by the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization health plan, for Genotropin recombinant growth hormone prescribed for the treatment of long- term growth failure associated with idiopathic short stature.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The state group insurance program is a package of insurance plans offered to, among others, state employees and their dependents. § 110.123(2)(k), Fla. Stat.1/ Petitioner Arturo Puerto is insured as a dependent of a state employee, and is a participant in the state's group self- insured plan, known as the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization health plan ("PPO plan" or "state plan"). The state plan includes a state employees' prescription drug program. § 110.12315, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to Section 110.123(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the Department is responsible for contract management and day- to-day management of the state employee health insurance program. Section 110.123(5)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to contract with an insurance carrier or professional administrator to administer the state plan. The current contract provider of the state plan's pharmacy program is CareMark Inc. ("CareMark"). However, the Department makes all final decisions concerning the existence of coverage or covered benefits under the state plan. The Department's authority in this regard may not be delegated to a contract provider. § 110.123(5), Fla. Stat. Petitioner was born on February 12, 1992. On or about February 3, 2009, Petitioner's physician prescribed Genotropin, a recombinant growth hormone ("GH")2/ approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as therapy for short stature, including idiopathic short stature ("ISS"). ISS is short stature that does not have a diagnostic explanation, in an otherwise healthy child. ISS is also called "non-GH-deficient short stature." The Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document, effective January 1, 2007, as modified on January 1, 2009, includes the terms and conditions of participation in the PPO plan and the benefits provided by the PPO plan. The booklet and benefits document contains a section describing the prescription drug program. Participants in the PPO plan are automatically enrolled in the prescription drug program, which features a network of retail pharmacies and a mail order program. The participant makes a co-payment for covered prescriptions. The booklet and benefits document sets forth a list of drugs that are covered, and a list of drugs that are not covered under the prescription drug program. Under the heading "Important Information about the Prescription Drug Program," the document states the following concerning specialty medications:3/ 5. Certain medications, including most biotech drugs, are only available through Caremark Specialty Pharmacy Services. Generally, these drugs are for chronic or genetic disorders including, but not limited to, multiple sclerosis, growth deficiency and rheumatoid arthritis and may require special delivery options, (i.e. temperature control). Caremark Specialty Pharmacy provides 24/7 access and can be contacted at 1-800-237-2767. * * * 12. As part of the Caremark Specialty Services, Caremark will administer the Advanced Guideline Management program for the State Employees' PPO Plan. Advanced Guideline Management is intended to optimize outcomes and promote the safe, clinically appropriate and cost-effective use of specialty medications supported by evidence based medical guidelines. Failure to meet the criteria for Advanced Guideline Management during the respective use review will result in denial of medication coverage for the Plan participant and discontinuation of medication coverage for the Plan participant in the case of concurrent use review. The Advanced Guideline Management Program is a process by which authorization for a specialty medication is obtained based on the application of currently acceptable medical guidelines and consensus statements for appropriate use of the medication in a specific disease state. Therapies reviewed under the Specialty Guideline Management Program include, but are not limited to, the following: multiple sclerosis, oncology, allergic asthma, human growth hormone, hepatitis C, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and respiratory syncytial virus. Additional therapies may be added from time to time.... CareMark's current guideline covering Genotropin and similar GH medications is set forth in a 2008 CareMark document titled, "Specialty Pharmacy Program for Growth Hormone and Endocrine-Metabolic Disorders." The document contains flow charts describing the criteria employed by CareMark to determine coverage for specific conditions. Among the criteria set forth in the flow chart for prescribing GH to children with ISS is the following question: "Does pre-treatment growth velocity and height meet the AACE (American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists) criteria for short stature?" (See Appendix N). If the answer to the question is "no," then the criteria direct that coverage for the prescription of GH should be denied. Appendix N sets forth the following "AACE criteria for short stature": < -2.25 standard deviations below the mean for age and sex based on patient's growth rate, adult height prediction of less than 5'3" for boys and less than 4'11" for girls. Appendix N is based on the AACE's "Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for Growth Hormone Use in Adults and Children-- 2003 Update" and a December 2003 AACE Position Statement on growth hormone usage in short children.4/ The CareMark document is not explicit as to whether the quoted elements of the AACE criteria for short stature are to be considered in the disjunctive. However, the AACE Position Statement expressly states that GH use is indicated for ISS only for children whose height is "< - 2.25 standard deviations below the mean and have an adult height prediction of less than 5'3" for boys and less than 4'11" for girls." (Emphasis added.) The height standard deviation criterion used by CareMark to determine the appropriateness of Genotropin therapy as a treatment for ISS was shown to be consistent with FDA criteria and the specifications established by Pfizer, the manufacturer of Genotropin. The medical records submitted on behalf of Petitioner show that at the time Genotropin therapy was prescribed in February 2009, Petitioner's height was 162.5 cm (5'4"). This was 1.66 standard deviations below the mean for his age and sex. Untreated, his predicted final height was 164 cm (5'4 1/2"). At the time Genotropin therapy was prescribed, Petitioner did not meet the height standard deviation requirement. His height standard deviation was 1.66 standard deviations below the mean. The deviation required by the CareMark criteria was greater than 2.25 standard deviations below the mean. At the time Genotropin therapy was prescribed, Petitioner did not meet the adult height prediction requirement. Petitioner was already 5'4" tall and was projected to reach a height of 5'4 1/2" without treatment. The CareMark criteria required a projected adult height without treatment of 5'3" or below. The PPO plan denied payment for the Genotropin therapy because Petitioner did not meet criteria established by CareMark through its Specialty Pharmacy Program guidelines. The booklet and benefits document makes no provision for exceptions to strict conformity to the CareMark criteria. At the hearing, Petitioner's representative acknowledged that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for Genotropin therapy, but requested that the Department order such coverage as an exception to the criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance enter a final order denying coverage for Petitioner's prescription for Genotropin therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 2010.
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
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, as beneficiary of her deceased father's State of Florida life insurance policy, is entitled to a benefit of $10,000 or $2,500, and is related to how notice of a change in coverage amount and premium was provided to the decedent.
Findings Of Fact At the time of his death on November 29, 2008, Maurice Adkins was covered by the state life insurance plan, as a retired employee of the State of Florida. The Petitioner, Justina Mullennix, is the daughter of Mr. Adkins and is the beneficiary of any life insurance benefits paid or payable from the state life insurance plan on account of the death of her father. Effective January 1, 2000, the coverage for retirees was increased to $10,000.00. The premium for this coverage was $4.20 per month. The DSGI prepared a letter dated July 31, 2006, to notify the retirees that effective January 1, 2007, the life insurance benefit options provided to retirees would change. The changes allowed retirees to elect one of the following options: $2,500 benefit for a monthly premium of $ 4.20. $10,000 benefit for a monthly premium of $35.79. Termination of coverage. The letter dated July 31, 2006, informed retirees that their life insurance premium would remain the same, but that their coverage would be reduced to $2,500, unless they elected coverage in the amount of $10,000 and elected to pay the higher premium. The letter advised the retirees they could change their election up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of the DSGI, maintains benefits data for the People First/Division of State Group Insurance. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and mailing addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. Mr. Waller created the file, prepared in July 2006, to use in a "mail merge," to send all retirees a copy of the letter dated July 31, 2006. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record that he maintained. In July 2006, the address of record for Mr. Adkins was 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207, and was included in the file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and on July 3, 2006, delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockeridge. Thomas Lockeridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of the DSGI. The DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes to mail the letter of July 31, 2006, to all retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the print shop of the DSGI, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing names and addresses of retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters dated July 31, 2006, in envelopes addressed to each retiree who carried life insurance at the time, were delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen. The State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Adkins at the Belair address. The return address on the envelope containing the letter was the Division of State Group Insurance, 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 215, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0949. The letter was not returned to the Division. The letters that were returned to the DSGI were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of the DSGI. Each letter that was returned to the Division of State Group Insurance was handled in one of two ways: a) if the envelope showed a different address on a yellow sticker applied by the US Postal Service (USPS), the letter was re-mailed to that address; b) if the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of the Division of Retirement was made, a copy of the print screen showing the address in the Retirement database was made, if different from that on the database of the Division of State Group Insurance, and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the Division of Retirement database. A copy of each Retirement screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. For every person whose letter was returned, and for which there was not another address, there would have been a Retirement print screen. The absence of a Retirement print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. There is no retirement print screen for Mr. Adkins, indicating that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to the DSGI. DMS has contracted with Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an on-line system known as “People First.” Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES). When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys People First System. People First became the system of record for the DSGI beginning January 1, 2005. People First and the Division of Retirement do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. Once a year the DSGI must hold Open Enrollment for the health program. § 110.123(3)(h)5, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 60P-1.003(16). Open Enrollment is the period designated by the DMS during which time eligible persons may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, the DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period, for the 2007 Plan Year, ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During open enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending open enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Adkins’s Open Enrollment Package to the 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 address, on September 3, 2006. The Open Enrollment Package for Plan Year 2007 was mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class postage paid. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins, for 2006 Open Enrollment, was not returned to People First. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Adkins’s 2007 Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of the DSGI; "Information of Note"; a Privacy Notice; Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and a 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included the following statement: Retiree Life Insurance For Plan Year 2007, those currently enrolled with retiree life insurance may elect to retain the current $4.20 premium for a benefit of $2,500, retain the current benefit of $10,000 for a premium of $35.79, or cancel coverage. If no change is made during open enrollment, participation will continue at the $4.20 premium level. Neither Mr. Adkins nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000.00 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 and 2007. Because the election was not made, at the death of Mr. Adkins, the benefit paid to the Petitioner was $2,500.00. Prior to January 1, 2007, the Life Insurance Trust Fund was used to augment the premiums paid by retirees for life insurance. The premium paid by the retirees did not support a $10,000 coverage level. In year 2006, the DSGI determined that the money in the life insurance trust fund, used to augment the retiree’s benefits from years 2000 through 2007, would not be available after 2007. Beginning January 1, 2007, the change in life insurance coverage was made because the funds in the Life Insurance Trust Fund were no longer available to augment the premium payment required to maintain a benefit level of $10,000.00, for a payment of $4.20 per month by the retirees. In 2006, the DSGI determined that the then-current life insurance premium of $4.20 would support a benefit of $2,500, and that the $10,000 benefits would cost $35.79. The notices provided by the July 31, 2006, letter and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package were sufficient notices of the increase in premium in that they provided a reasonable opportunity within which to make a selection of the level of coverage. On December 30, 1997, the Division of Retirement received a written notice of change of address for Mr. Adkins. The new address was 217 Skye Dr. W, Jacksonville, Florida 32221. Although Mr. Adkins had changed his address with the Division of Retirement, he did not notify the DSGI. A change of address with one division does not automatically change addresses in the other. The two divisions have different databases. During no time relevant to these proceedings have the two divisions shared databases. The DSGI, through People First, used the database of the Division of Retirement to send the 2004 Benefits Statement as an experiment to determine whether DSGI undeliverable returns would decrease. The same database was also used for the mailing of the letter dated September 2, 2003. However, neither DSGI nor People First changed its database after the 2004 Benefits Statement was sent and subsequent information was mailed to the DSGI address of record, based upon the COPES system. Therefore, the letter dated July 31, 2006, and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package for the Plan Year 2007, were mailed to the same Belair address, the address of record. A change of address for Mr. Adkins was not made in the database of the DSGI until December 1, 2008, when People First was provided a change of address. The only change of address that the Petitioner has alleged, was the one provided by Mr. Adkins to the Division of Retirement (only) in 1997.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Justina Mullennix 1217 Skye Drive West Jacksonville, Florida 32221 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues concern the question of Petitioner's responsibility to pay additional insurance premiums related to Family I coverage in the State Employees' Group Health Insurance program for the period February 1981 through April 1982, based upon alleged underpayments of required premiums. See Section 110.123, Florida Statutes and Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact According to the Florida law which has application in this dispute, when a husband and wife were employed by separate agencies of the State of Florida, cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan was defrayed by those state agencies. This is as contrasted with the circumstance in which one spouse would be responsible for contributing to the cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan, should the second spouse cease to be employed by the second state agency. The State of Florida, Department of Administration, has she responsibility for administering the State Group Health Insurance Plan, to include collection of necessary premium payments. Both Petitioner and his wife had been reported in the records of the Department of Administration as employed by the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services respectively, as employees entitled to participate in the spouse program for payment of health care, i.e., the program in which no contribution is made by the employees toward payment of health insurance premiums. On October 28, 1982, the Petitioner informed the Department of Administration on a form provided by the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration that his wife, Caroline Wilson, had terminated her employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services effective March 23, 1982. This form was executed in cooperation with the Petitioner's employing agency. The second part of the form related to information to be provided by the wife and her employing agency on the question of her employment was not completed by the spouse nor signed off by her employing agency. A copy of this item or form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. As a result of information he provided, Petitioner was informed of an underpayment of premiums for the period May 1982 through November 1982, related to his wife's lack of eligibility for contribution from her employing agency and the responsibility of the Petitioner to substitute as payor of those premiums. This referred to the point of departure identified by the Petitioner allowing for a grace month of April 1982, thereby making the period of underpayment May 1982 through November 1982. The amount of nonpayment was $280.06, which was eventually reimbursed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, in January 1984, Respondent, Bureau of Insurance, in an attempt to ascertain why Health and Rehabilitative Services had not contributed the full amount of its share to the insurance related to Caroline P. Wilson in times before March 23, 1982, discovered that the wife, Caroline P. Wilson, had terminated her employment some time before March 23, 1982. As was revealed in the final hearing, the last day of employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services was January 3, 1981. After that date, Mrs. Wilson did not return to her job at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, and was eventually considered to have abandoned that job. (It was the first impression of the Department of Administration that she had last been employed in December 1980 and as a consequence this case pertains to the claim of the Department of Administration that there is an underpayment related to the family coverage which starts on February 1, 1981 and runs until April 1, 1982, allowing for a credit of overpayment in the amount of $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total claimed of $382.64. It is this amount that Petitioner took issue with and requested a timely formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes' hearing to resolve.) Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the date from which the responsibility of the husband to contribute the premiums share no longer being provided by Health and Rehabilitative Services would be January 1981, as opposed to December 1980. Allowing for the grace month of February 1981, the payments would be due for March 1, 1981, through April 1, 1982, allowing credit again for the $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total due and owing in the way of underpayment of $353.90.
