Findings Of Fact Aurelio Durana has been employed with the Department of Administration continuously since 1979. He enrolled in the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self-Insurance Plan before the period in dispute and had maintained individual coverage until August 1, 1980. Alina Durana, Petitioner's spouse, was employed by the Department of State from 1977 until her resignation on March 9, 1981. From September 9, 1980, through March 9, 1981, Alina Durana was on maternity leave without pay from her position at the Department of State. This maternity leave expired March 9, 1981 (Exhibit 2). Alina Durana had enrolled in the Group Health Insurance Plan from the beginning of her employment and maintained individual coverage until August 1, 1980. Effective August 1, 1980, Petitioner and his spouse elected family coverage, entitling them to a State contribution covering the entire premium. On Application for Multiple Contributions dated 1 July 1980 (Exhibit 8), Petitioner agreed to be responsible for any underpayment of premium resulting from his wife's ineligibility for a State contribution and agreed that any such underpayment should be deducted from any salary due him. Under the State Health Insurance program the agency for whom the employee worked contributes one-half of the family premium of $69.96 per month. Since both Petitioner and his wife were working for the State, each agency contributed $34.98 per month, thereby covering the entire premium. The agencies contribute this sum to the trust fund from which medical claims of employees are paid. When an employee ceases to be on the agency's payroll the agency stops this contribution to the fund and is supposed to notify the Department of Administration so pay adjustments to employees' pay can be made if necessary. When Mrs. Durana commenced her leave without pay on September 9, 1980, the Department of State failed to notify the Department of Administration that they were no longer contributing $34.98 per month to the Durana family health plan. Had they done so, the Department of Administration would have notified Durana that he would have $34.98 deducted from his pay each month if he desired to remain in the program. In September 1981 Petitioner notified the Department of Administration Personnel Office that health insurance premiums were not being deducted from his pay. Thereafter, Respondent learned of the departure of Mrs. Durana from the Department of State payroll in September 1980 and made claim against Durana for $316.14 for underpayment of premiums from the period the Department of State had not contributed to the fund and no premiums were paid by Petitioner. During the period Mrs. Durana was not on the payroll and the Department of State was contributing nothing to the trust fund, no claims were submitted by Durana for medical costs. However, during this period Petitioner was included in the list of beneficiaries of the State Health Insurance Plan and medical bills submitted by him would have been paid by the administrator of the trust fund.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resigned from State Government on July 23, 1987. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was covered under the Florida State Group Health Insurance Plan. His wife, who is a diabetic, was also covered under Petitioner's insurance. Upon termination Petitioner was eligible for continuation of coverage benefits under the federal COBRA Act. However, prior to receiving any notice of his COBRA rights, Petitioner elected to continue his State Employees' Insurance for two months from July 1, 1987 and then begin coverage under his new employer's insurance plan. 2/ Petitioner made advance payment on the 2 months additional coverage. The payments carried his State Employees' health insurance through September 1, 1987 when it was terminated. DOA notified Petitioner on August 27, 1987, of his right to elect continuation of coverage under the COBRA Act. This notice complied with the notice requirements under the COBRA Act. COBRA provides continued health insurance coverage for up to (18) months, after a covered employee leaves employment. However, coverage does not continue beyond the time the employee is covered under another group health plan. COBRA simply fills the gap between two different employers group health insurance plans so that an employee's group health insurance does not lapse while the employee changes jobs. Petitioner's new employer's health coverage began around September 1, 1987. After Petitioner had begun coverage under his new insurance plan, he discovered that his wife's preexisting diabetic condition would not be covered. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner, within 60 days of September 1, 1987 requested the Division of State Employee's Insurance to continue his insurance coverage pursuant to COBRA. Moreover, Petitioner's COBRA rights terminated when he began his coverage under his new employer's health plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for continuation of coverage under COBRA. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Brian T. Kidd is entitled to additional reimbursement of medical care expenses under the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Kidd is a state employee and has been diagnosed as having Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. When the disease was diagnosed, Mr. Kidd was covered by Capital Health Plan (CHP). CHP refused to cover the expenses of testing and treatment at the ALS clinic in Houston, Texas. During the October, 1989, open enrollment period, Mr. Kidd opted to change his medical insurance coverage to the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan (the State Plan). He made the change hoping to get coverage for the testing and treatment at the ALS clinic in Texas. The effective date of his coverage under the State Plan was January 1, 1990. Prior to leaving for the ALS clinic, Mr. Kidd talked to Lee Peacock and William Seaton in the Department's Division of State Employee Insurance. Mr. Kidd was told that the only way to determine the extent of coverage for the testing and treatment was to get prior approval from the Department's prior approval program. Mr. Kidd did not file a claim under the prior approval program. Instead, on January 29, 1990, Mr. Kidd sent a letter to William Seaton, together with a copy of a letter from Bernard. M. Patten, M.D., a doctor with the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Mr. Kidd's letter advises that he wants a predetermination regarding tests he is having from January 31 to February 8, 1990. Knowing that his letter requesting a predetermination could not have even been received by the Department, Mr. Kidd left for Texas and the scheduled tests and treatment. Mr. Peacock responded to the January 29, 1990, letter on February 13, 1990, advising that prior approval could not be given because the letter contained inadequate information and a prior approval claim had not been filed. Mr. Kidd did receive medical testing and treatment from January 31 to February 8, 1990. The State Plan paid approximately $8,400 of the total bills. Mr. Kidd believes that the State Plan should have paid more. Mr. Kidd offered no credible evidence to show entitlement to greater payment of benefits. While he did place numerous benefit payment schedule forms into evidence, he did not identify a single unpaid charge and show that it should have been paid. Further, his testimony in this regard is not entitled to great weight because some of his statements are plainly inaccurate. For example, Mr. Kidd identified a benefit payment schedule bearing a number of 00731581300 in which payment for $85.00 was excluded. He claimed that this charge should have been paid. On cross-examination, Mr. Kidd had to acknowledge that this charge was in fact paid on benefit payment schedule number 01271871300 except for $20.00 which was an ineligible expense. Mr. Kidd was unclear on and unable to identify those charges which had not been paid and the reasons he believed he was entitled to the benefits. The State Benefit Document limits payments for hospital services for non-PPC services at 80% of the hospital's average rate, not to exceed $152.00 per day. The Plan also requires a deductible of $200.00 per hospital admission. For example in this case Mr. Kidd had 9 days of hospitalization and was charged $230.00 per day. The eligible expenses were only $190.00 per day or $1710 leaving a total of $360 of ineligible expenses. Further, The Plan pays only 80% of eligible expenses (.80 x 1710=1368), leaving $342 or 20% as the patient's responsibility. Adding the ineligible expenses and the patient's responsibility leaves a total of $702 of the hospital room and board not paid under the Plan. The amount paid was correct. While there are other examples such as this where the Plan clearly paid the proper amount, there is no evidence to show one single example where the Plan did not pay all that was owed. All of Mr. Kidd's claims were properly paid under the Plan in accordance with the Benefit Document.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Brian T. Kidd's request for additional reimbursement and dismissing Mr. Kidd's petition for relief. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Brian T. Kidd The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are in a format which combines findings of fact, conclusions of law and argument. The proposed findings of fact cannot be separated in such a way as to allow specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. Hence the only ruling that can be made is that the proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Administration Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5(1-7) and 9(12). Proposed finding of fact 6 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian T. Kidd Route 3, Box 4381 Quincy, Florida 32351 Augustus D. Aikens General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Mr. Wills is entitled to reimbursement from the State Group Health Insurance Plan for health services provided by an otolaryngologist and a speech pathologist for vocal therapy.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida makes available to employees several health insurance programs. One of the options available to employees is the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Employees may also enroll in a number of different health maintenance organizations depending upon the county in which the employee resides. The Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan was established by the Legislature, and its benefits are described in the Benefit Document. The Plan as a whole is administered by Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which did not write the terms of the Plan. When an employee chooses to participate in the Plan, the State contributes to the employee's insurance cost by paying a portion of the premium for the employee in order to be covered by the Plan. Mr. Wills is employed by the State of Florida as the Chief Assistant Public Defender for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Wills is a Senior Trial Attorney in the Public Defender's Office and a senior administrator who needs his voice to carry on his professional duties. He was a member of the Plan at all times relevant to this proceeding. The case revolves around whether Mr. Wills is entitled to reimbursement for expenses he incurred when he was diagnosed in June 1990 as having a vocal chord lesion, also known as a contact ulcer or granuloma of the vocal fold, and participated in a course of medical treatment for this condition. For example, Mr. Wills would attempt to speak, but portions of words could not be heard. Mr. Wills ultimately was treated by Dr. W. Jarrard Goodwin. Dr. Goodwin is a specialist in diseases of the ear, nose and throat (i.e., an otolaryngologist), and teaches at the University of Miami School of Medicine. Dr. Goodwin was of the view that the lesion was caused by the mechanical banging together of the vocal chords, and that surgery was not an appropriate treatment for him. Instead, he prescribed an antibiotic and three weeks vocal rest. He had a second consultation with Mr. Wills on August 14, 1990, at which time Dr. Goodwin referred Mr. Wills to Donna S. Lundy, a speech pathologist in the Department of Otolaryngology at the University of Miami Medical School, for voice therapy. A contact ulcer or granuloma can result from the pitch of the voice being too high or too low, from speaking too loudly, or from not breathing from the diaphragm. All of these can be treated with behavioral voice therapy through exercises, either to raise or lower the pitch of the voice, or to breathe from the diaphragm and relax the vocal chords in order to decrease effort and strain near the lesion. Mr. Wills saw Ms. Lundy for sessions of vocal therapy at Dr. Goodwin's office on August 11, September 13, October 5, November 11, and December 27, 1990, and Mr. Willis practiced the exercises he was given between appointments. Even if Mr. Wills had had surgery, i.e., a stripping of the vocal chords, an alternative treatment for the contact granuloma, he still would have had vocal therapy following that surgery to modify his vocal habits to prevent a recurrence of the lesion. As a result of the vocal therapy, Mr. Wills' condition has improved, and he no longer suffers from the contact granuloma. Speech therapy treats abnormalities of speech production, language formulation and processing, such as articulation disorders, stuttering, language delay, and disorders of neuromuscular control. It is not the same as voice therapy. Five claims for health services were submitted on behalf of Mr. Wills by Donna S. Lundy, under procedure code 92507. Code 92507 on the approved fee schedule covers "Speech, Language or Hearing Therapy, with Continuing Medical Supervision, Individual." Dr. Goodwin, also submitted one claim under procedure code 92507 for services provided to Mr. Wills on August 14, 1990. All such claims were rejected by the Department. The State of Florida, Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document contains exclusions. The applicable exclusion, according to the Department, is Section VII(Q): VII. Exclusions The following exclusions shall apply under the plan: * * * * Q. Occupational, recreational, edu-cational, or speech therapy, orthoptics, biofeedback, contra-ceptives, telephone consultation, cardiac rehabilitation exercise programs, or visits for the purpose of exercise by bicycle, ergometer or treadmill. Benefit Document, page 46. There is no further explanation of the term "speech therapy" found in exclusion VII(Q) in any other portion of the Benefit Document. The approved fee schedule for the Group Health Self-Insurance Plan has a procedure code for "speech, language or hearing therapy, with continuing medical supervision, individual." That the approved fee schedule has such an entry at all is an indication that there are circumstances where speech language or hearing therapy is covered. Otherwise, the entry would be wholly inconsistent with the Department's position that Section VII(Q) flatly prohibits any payment for "speech therapy". Ms. Lundy is licensed speech-language pathologist in the State of Florida. Unless a person qualifies for licensure as a speech-language pathologist, a person may not describe him or herself using a number of terms. Among these forbidden terms are "speech pathologist", "speech therapist", "language pathologist", "voice therapist" and "voice pathologist". Section 468.1285(1)(b), Florida Statutes, (1990 Supp.). The Department relies upon the definition for the practice of speech-language pathology in the Professional Practice Act, Chapter 468, Part I, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to argue that any services provided by a licensed speech-language pathologist must necessarily fall within the exclusion found in Section VII(Q) of the Benefit Document. The Department's argument that because the term "speech therapy" is not defined in the Benefit Document, it should determine the meaning of the term by looking to see how the term "speech-language pathology" is defined in Section 468.1125(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), the professional practice act for speech-language pathology, is unpersuasive. There was no testimony that the Benefit Document was written with all definitions found in various professional practice acts in mind. There is certainly no proof that the Legislature crafted the miscellaneous professional practice acts in Chapter 468 with an eye towards using the definitions in those acts for determinations under the Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan. The Benefit Document and the professional practice acts have little or nothing to do with each other, and neither shed light upon terms used in the other.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Administration enter a Final Order requiring the Division of Employees' State Insurance to pay all claims submitted by Donna S. Lundy and the claim of Dr. Goodwin which have been denied. The Benefit Document does not clearly exclude voice therapy for a contact granuloma, and in the absence of a clear exclusion, the law requires that those claims be paid. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5324 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Discussed in Finding 5. Rejected as unnecessary. See, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected. See, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in Finding 5. Rulings on findings proposed by Mr. Wills, treated as if the paragraphs had been numbered: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 7. Generally adopted in Finding 9. Generally adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Findings 5 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Michaelson, Esquire 9326 Northwest 18th Drive Plantation, FL 33322 John M. Carlson, Esquire Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an upgrade in her insurance coverage from individual to family status should be granted with a retro-active effective date of October 13, 1994; the date of birth of Respondent's son.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner was initially employed and covered under the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan on July 1, 1993. Petitioner selected individual coverage and completed the appropriate forms indicating such coverage. Effective January 1, 1994, Petitioner's coverage for the 1994 Plan Year continued with individual coverage. Petitioner became pregnant in April, 1994, with an estimated due date of December 6, 1994. However, she went into premature labor on October 12, 1994, at 32 weeks gestation. Attempts to stop her labor were unsuccessful and she delivered a son, Gavon K. Brown, by caesarean delivery on October 13, 1994. On October 22, 1994, Petitioner completed the required forms to change from individual coverage to family coverage. Respondent changed Petitioner's coverage to family coverage effective December 1, 1994. Other Facts Petitioner did not inform the personnel office at her place of state employment, Columbia Correctional Facility in Lake City, Florida of her pregnancy. Petitioner saw a private physician in Gainesville, Florida. The physician was concerned about Petitioner's excessive weight and referred her to the Park Avenue Women's Center in Gainesville sometime near the end of April, 1994. The Park Avenue Women's Center, associated with the University of Florida College of Medicine, treats women with at risk pregnancies. Petitioner was seen there by Dr. Kenneth Kelner, also a professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Florida College of Medicine. As a registered nurse, Petitioner was aware that she was at an increased general risk for difficulty with her pregnancy as a result of her excessive weight. On August 5, 1994, as a result of problems with getting a medical bill paid by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Petitioner called offices of the administrator of the Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) in Jacksonville, Florida. In the course of her telephone conversation, Petitioner maintains that she was told she could switch to family coverage in order to cover expenses of her unborn child as late as 30 days prior to the birth, estimated and expected to occur on December 6, 1994. Petitioner had previously received The Benefit Payment Schedule on July 13, 1994, which contained a warning to pregnant women policyholders that single or individual coverage did not include coverage for a child following its birth and that family coverage would need to be in effect prior to the month of the child's birth to afford coverage for the child. During the August 5, 1994 telephone conversation with the representative of BCBS in Jacksonville, Petitioner inquired regarding the amount of the monthly premium for family coverage. Petitioner was referred to the Division of State Employees' Insurance (DSEI) and provided with that telephone number in order to acquire coverage for her unborn child and get further detailed information. Petitioner did not call DSEI. On October 12, 1994, in the course of a routine check-up, it was determined that Petitioner's cervix was dilated. Subsequently, Petitioner gave birth to her son at 1 a.m. on October 13, 1994. On October 13, 1994, Petitioner called the personnel office at her place of employment with the Department of Corrections and informed that office of the birth of her son. Although Petitioner maintains that she was told at that time by someone in the personnel office that her son would immediately be afforded insurance coverage, Petitioner presented no direct admissible evidence in corroboration of this allegation and her testimony in this respect is not credited. On October 22, 1994, while sitting in the hospital lobby waiting to visit her son, who remained in hospital care following his premature birth, Petitioner signed the required papers and forms to change from individual to family coverage. The forms, bearing an effective date for coverage change of December 1, 1994, were returned to Petitioner's personnel office without an accompanying check or other payment for any employee premium co-payment which would have permitted a construction that an earlier coverage effective date should have been assigned the policy change. Based upon the timing of the election made by Petitioner, expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child prior to December 1, 1994, were not covered by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
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 Susie Simone Brown's petition in this matter. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-24. Adopted, not verbatim. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29.-40. Adopted by reference. 41.-42. Rejected, unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings consisted of one paragraph requesting that Respondent provide coverage for Petitioner's son effective on the date of his birth, October 13, 1994. The proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Chief Department of Management Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Rd., B-12 Tallahassee, FL 32301-4876 Susie Simone Brown 2931 Bay Rd. Orange Park, FL 32065 William H. Linder Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 307 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell General Counsel Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue Whether the designated portion of the letter dated December 23, 1997, from Paul Stanley to Michael Robinson is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, whether Petitioner (the District) is substantially affected by the alleged agency statement within the meaning of Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The District is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It operates four medical centers and numerous clinics and medical offices throughout Broward County. The District is a major provider of indigent healthcare, particularly through operation of its trauma centers. The District contracts with several health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Since 1955, the District has utilized the Broward County Lien Law to help secure payment for medical services rendered to persons injured in accidents caused by the negligence of another, or for which some liability insurance might be payable to the injured party. Chapter 30615, Laws of Florida (also found in Article II, Section 16-13, Broward County Code of Ordinance) (the Lien Law), 2/ provides in pertinent part: [E]very governmental unit operating a hospital shall be entitled to a lien for all reasonable charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance of ill or injured persons upon any and all causes or action, suits, claims, counter-claims and demands accruing to the persons to whom such care, treatment and maintenance are furnished. The following factual scenario typifies the circumstances under which the District has utilized the Lien Law: A person is injured in an automobile accident through the fault of another. The injured victim is transported to one of the District's medical facilities (usually a trauma center at one of the District's hospitals) and receives medical attention. Upon learning that the patient has been injured in an automobile accident, the District files a lien in circuit court for payment of the full charges for services rendered to the patient at the District's facility. The District files the lien regardless of whether the patient is an HMO subscriber. The injured victim sues the tortfeasor and his or her liability carrier for money damages arising from the accident. The injured victim claims the right to payment of damages sufficient to pay the full medical bill, regardless of whether the victim is an HMO subscriber or has another form of health insurance. Proceeds from the injured patient's settlement or judgment against the tortfeasor or liability insurance carrier is applied first to pay off the District's lien, and thereafter to the patient or insurance carrier or HMO. If the injured patient is an HMO subscriber, and if the settlement or judgment proceeds are sufficient to pay off the District's lien, the subscriber's HMO is not obligated to pay any money for medical services. If the settlement or judgment proceeds satisfy only a portion of the lien amount, the District will thereafter look to the HMO for payment of services at the HMO contracted rate. The District does not seek to charge or collect against an HMO subscriber for any services rendered to that subscriber. Section 627.4235, Florida Statutes, entitled Coordination of Benefits, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A group hospital, medical, or surgical expense policy, group health-care services plan, or group-type self-insurance plan that provides protection or insurance against hospital, medical, or surgical expenses delivered or issued for delivery in the state must contain a provision for coordinating its benefits with any similar benefits provided by any other group hospital, medical, or surgical expense policy, any group healthcare services plan or any group-type self insurance plan that provides protection or insurance against hospital, medical, or surgical expense for the same loss. A hospital, medical, or surgical expense policy, healthcare services plan, or self-insurance plan that provides protection for insurance against hospital, medical, or surgical expenses issued in this state or issued for delivery in this state may contain a provision whereby the insurer may reduce or refuse to pay benefits otherwise payable thereunder solely on account of the existence of similar benefits provided under insurance policies issued by the same or another insurer, healthcare services plan, or self-insurance plan which provides protection or insurance against hospital, medical or surgical expenses only if, as a condition of coordinating benefits with another insurer, the insurers together pay 100% of the total reasonable expenses actually incurred of the type of expense within the benefits described in the policies and presented to the insurer for payment. A purpose of Florida's Automobile No Fault Law (Sections 627.730-627.7405, Florida Statutes), is to require motor vehicle insurance providing medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault. See Section 627.731, Florida Statutes. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, entitled Required Personal Injury Protection Benefits; Exclusions; Priority, provides in pertinent part as follows: Required Benefits - every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of s. 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection to the named insured, relatives residing in the same household, persons operating the insured motor vehicle, passengers in such motor vehicle, and other persons struck by such motor vehicle and suffering bodily injury while not an occupant of a self propelled vehicle, subject to the provisions of Section (2) and paragraph (4)(d), to a limit of $10,000.00 for losses sustained by any such person as a result of bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as follows: Medical Benefits - Eighty percent of all reasonable expenses for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital and nursing services. Such benefits shall also include necessary remedial treatment and services recognized and permitted under the laws of the state for an injured person who relies upon spiritual means through prayer alone for healing, in accordance with his or her religious beliefs. * * * (4) Benefits: When Due. - Benefits due from an insurer under Sections 627-730 - 627.7405 shall be primary, except that benefits received under any workers compensation law shall be credited against the benefits provided by subsection (1). * * * (f) Medical payments insurance, if available in a policy of motor vehicle insurance, shall pay the portion of any claim for personal injury protection medical benefits which is otherwise covered but is not payable due to the co-insurance provision of paragraph (1)(a), regardless of whether the full amount of personal injury protection coverage has been exhausted. Section 641.37(7), Florida Statutes, provides that an HMO is entitled to coordinate benefits on the same basis as an insurer under Section 627.4235, Florida Statutes. The District has contracted with HIP Network of Florida, Inc. (HIP), a health maintenance organization duly licensed by the Department to furnish hospital and related services to HIP subscribers. 3/ The contract between the District and HIP provides that the District shall look only to HIP for compensation of services rendered to a member (of HIP) when such services are covered by HIP's subscriber contracts (individual or group contracts). The District agrees not to bill, charge, or otherwise seek compensation or remuneration from the member of persons acting on behalf of the member (other than HIP) except to the extent that copayments are specified in the subscriber contracts. The District agrees not to maintain any action at law or equity against a member to collect sums that are owed by HIP to the District under the terms of the contract, even in the event HIP fails to pay, becomes insolvent, or otherwise breaches the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The contract between the District and HIP also provides a schedule of fees to be paid by HIP to the District for the payment of services covered by the contract. HIP agrees to pay those specified amounts and the District agrees to accept these amounts as payment in full for such services, except for authorized copayments. The contract provides that amounts received by the District as a result of coordination of benefits are to be deducted from amounts payable to the District by HIP. The contract also provides that HIP may coordinate the costs of providing benefits with any other group coverage or policy of insurance including Workman's Compensation and automobile insurance, under which the member is covered to the extent allowed by law. Specifically, if a member is eligible to receive benefits under another plan(s) for services provided at HIP expense, HIP and the District reserve the right to obtain reimbursement from any such plan(s) for the cost of the services provided, but not in excess of the amount payable under each other plan(s). Coordination of benefits received by the District will be deducted from the amount owed by HIP. The District agrees to cooperate in obtaining coordination of benefits reimbursement. The District has contracts with other HMOs with similar provisions to the HIP contract. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Paul Stanley, was a Financial Examiner, Analyst II employed by the Department. Mr. Stanley's job description and practical function was to prepare and conduct audits of HMOs and other health care entities licensed by the Department. In the course of his employment, Mr. Stanley conducted a routine audit of HIP/NET and found three instances where a member of HIP/NET had received medical services from one of the District's facilities after the member had been in an automobile accident. In each of these three cases, the District filed a lien in circuit court pursuant to the Lien Law, but it did not file a claim with HIP for services rendered to the member. Section 641.315, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Whenever a contract exists between a health maintenance organization and a provider and the organization fails to meet its obligations to pay fees for services already rendered to a subscriber, the health maintenance organization shall be liable for such fee or fees rather than the subscriber; and the contract shall so state. No subscriber of an HMO shall be liable to any provider of health care services for any services covered by the HMO. No provider of services or any representative of such provider shall collect or attempt to collect from an HMO subscriber any money for services covered by an HMO and no provider or representative of such provider may maintain any action at law against a subscriber of an HMO to collect money owed to such provider by an HMO. Every contract between an HMO and a provider of health care services shall be in writing and shall contain a provision that the subscriber shall not be liable to the provider for any services covered by the subscriber's contract with the HMO. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to the amount of any deductible or copayment which is not covered by the contract of the HMO. By letter dated December 23, 1997, Mr. Stanley notified Michael Robinson, an attorney employed by the District, that in these three instances where he found HIP had not been billed when its members had been involved in an automobile accident, the District's liens violated Section 641.315, Florida Statutes. After advising Mr. Robinson of his audit, Mr. Stanley identified the three HIP members by name and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: After reviewing the situation, it was determined that all members were involved in automobile accidents and medical care was rendered at a North Broward facility. To date, no claim has been submitted to HIP Health Plan. After contacting the attorneys for the individuals, I was informed that North Broward refuses to submit a claim in the proper format to HIP Health Plan. I also ascertained that North Broward has attached a lien against the settlement in all three cases. I contacted Ms. Diane Costas of North Broward to gain information as to why no claims had been submitted to HIP Health Plan for services rendered by the facilities. In essence, Ms. Costas stated that since North Broward is a contracted provider for HIP Health Plan, and is paid by the HMO at a negotiated rate, payment from HIP would be substantially lower than billed charges. By refusing to submit a claim to HIP, North Broward would realize greater revenues. As a result, the members, in this case, would receive a lesser portion of the final settlement. After consultation with the appropriate personnel at The Florida Department of Insurance, The Agency for Health Care Administration, and The Health Care Finance Administration (Ms. Gurland is a Medicare Risk member) be advised that The Florida Department of Insurance deems this action as a violation of section 641.315, Florida Statutes. The action North Broward has taken prevents the member from availing themselves [sic] of the coverage by their [sic] HMO and payment of services rendered at the lower contracted rate in effect by paying the difference between what HIP would pay pursuant to the contract and what North Broward has determined to be billed charges. Therefore, North Broward is balance billing the members. Prior to sending the letter of December 23, 1997, Mr. Stanley did not request or receive approval to do so from his superiors at the Department. At the time he wrote the letter asserting that he had consulted with appropriate personnel at the Department, Mr. Stanley had, in fact, not done so. John W. (Jack) Herzog is an Executive Senior Attorney with the Department of Insurance who supervises other attorneys, serves on a board of directors that manages the Department's Division of Legal Services, drafts legislation, and reviews rules. Mr. Herzog does not make policy on behalf of the Department. On June 12, 1998, Mr. Herzog attended a meeting that included an attorney representing the District. During the course of that meeting, Mr. Herzog expressed his opinion as an attorney for the Department that Section 641.315, Florida Statutes, prohibits the District from filing liens under the Lien Law under circumstances similar to those outlined in Mr. Stanley's letter. Mr. Herzog was not expressing any official position of the Department. Whether the Department has adopted an official position consistent with Mr. Stanley's discussion of hospital liens is a central issue in this proceeding. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is found that the Department has taken no official position as to the District's ability to utilize the Lien Law under the circumstances described in Mr. Stanley's letter. 4/ On June 16, 1998, the District was sued in a class action lawsuit over the issue of filing liens against HMO subscribers. Shortly thereafter, in late June or July of 1998, the District stopped filing liens against HMO subscribers who had been involved in an automobile accident. The District has suffered a substantial monetary loss since it stopped filing liens against HMO subscribers who had been involved in an automobile accident and will likely continue to suffer substantial losses in the future if it can no longer file such liens pursuant to the Lien Law.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Steven Lieberman, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on January 26, 2004, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat. (2004).1 Respondent, Charles Steven Lieberman, is currently, and was at all times pertinent to this matter, licensed in Florida as a resident Life & Variable Annuity (2-14); Life, Health & Variable Annuity (2-15); Life (2-16); Life & Health (2-18); and Health (2-40) Agent. (Stipulated Facts). The Department has jurisdiction over Mr. Lieberman's licenses and appointments pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Facts) Mr. Lieberman's license identification number is A155409. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman graduated from Columbia University. From 1974 through 1992, Mr. Lieberman worked as a trader initially on the floor of the Chicago Board of Options Exchange, and later, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Mr. Lieberman has held his insurance licenses for ten years. This is the first administrative complaint issued against him. Mr. Lieberman's Business. Mr. Lieberman, at all times pertinent, served as president of Charles Lieberman, Inc. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman, at all times pertinent, was the designated primary agent, as defined in Section 626.592, Florida Statutes, of Charles Lieberman, Inc. (Stipulated Facts). Charles Lieberman, Inc., at all times pertinent, owned and did business as "National Medical Services" and "The Insurance Center." (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman's "Medical Benefits Plan"/"Medical Savings Plan." Mr. Lieberman offers customers who are seeking medical insurance a plan which he calls a "Medical Benefits Plan" or "Medical Savings Plan" (hereinafter referred to as the "Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan"). The Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan consists of the following components (hereinafter referred collectively as the "Plan Products"): A hospital and surgery expense payment policy (hereinafter referred to as the "Hospital Insurance Plan"); A Catastrophe Major Medical Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Major Medical Insurance Plan"); and A discount card titled "The Chamber Card" (hereinafter referred to as the "Chamber Card"), with a "Limited Product Warranty." None of the Plan Products included insurance coverage for physician office visits, a fact which Mr. Lieberman was fully aware of. The Hospital Insurance Plan. The Hospital Insurance Plan provides coverage for hospital and surgical expenses. It does not provide coverage for physician office visits. The Hospital Insurance Plan is a medical insurance plan offered by United American Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "United American"). Mr. Lieberman is an agent for United American. Petitioner's Exhibit 64 is a copy of the hospital and surgery expense policy that constitutes the Hospital Insurance Plan sold by Mr. Lieberman. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner's Exhibit 65 is a copy of the Schedule of Benefits for the Hospital Insurance Plan. (Stipulated Facts). The Major Medical Insurance Plan. The Major Medical Insurance Plan provides coverage for major medical expenses in excess of $25,000.00. It does not provide coverage for physician office visits. The Major Medical Insurance Plan is also a medical insurance plan. It is offered by United States Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. Life"). In order to purchase a Major Medical Insurance Plan, customers are required to join one of many organizations which purchase Major Medical Insurance Plans through Seabury & Smith2, an organization which administers the sale of health insurance for U.S. Life. Customers, once they join such an organization, are then required to purchase the Major Medical Insurance Plan through the organization they joined. Mr. Lieberman is not an agent for U.S. Life or affiliated with Seabury & Smith. He does not, therefore, sell Major Medical Insurance Plans. Nor does he receive any compensation if any of his customers purchase a Major Medical Insurance Plan. Mr. Lieberman does, however, recommend the purchase of a Major Medical Insurance Plan as part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. In order to facilitate the purchase, Mr. Lieberman has his customers join the "American Contract Bridge League."3 His customers then purchase a Major Medical Insurance Plan directly based upon their League membership. Petitioner's Exhibit 63 is a copy of the Major Medical Insurance Plan which by Mr. Lieberman recommended that his customers purchase. (Stipulated Facts). The Chamber Card. In an effort to provide some relief for cost of physician office visits, which was not covered by the Hospital Insurance Plan or the Major Medical Insurance Plan, Mr. Lieberman sold his customers the Chamber Card. The Chamber Card, which is not insurance (Stipulated Facts), is a card which entitles the holder thereof to a discount4 for various medical services, including physician office visits. In an effort to enhance the discounts from the Chamber Card available to Mr. Lieberman's customers, Mr. Lieberman also provided what he termed a "Limited Product Warranty" which he offered through Charles Lieberman, Inc., d/b/a National Medical Services. This Limited Product Warranty is also not insurance. Pursuant to Mr. Lieberman's Limited Product Warranty, Mr. Lieberman purportedly agreed to provide reimbursement of the cost of any physician office visit in excess of $15.00, an amount which he referred to as a "copay," which was not paid for by the Chamber Card. The additional discounts were dependant, however, on Mr. Lieberman's ability to negotiate a reduction in the fees incurred by his customers directly from the physician.5 In describing the Chamber Card and the Limited Product Warranty sold by Mr. Lieberman, he used the acronyms "PPO" and "PHCS," and terms like "copay" and "claims" normally associated with the insurance industry. Customer W.E. (Count I of the Administrative Complaint). Prior to September 12, 2002, W.E. spoke with Mr. Lieberman by telephone. She explained to him that she was interested in purchasing health insurance, and before she could explain what she meant in any detail, he informed her that he could provide any health insurance she wanted as long as she did not have high blood pressure, which she did not. On September 12, 2002, W.E. met with Mr. Lieberman (Stipulated Facts) at his home to discuss purchasing health-care insurance. She explained to Mr. Lieberman that she wanted a health insurance plan similar to what she had had before she recently moved to Florida and that she wanted a plan with minimum co-payments. She also indicated that she wanted a basic insurance plan until she was able to find employment where her health insurance would be provided for her. W.E. did not specifically tell Mr. Lieberman that she wanted insurance that covered physician office visits.6 Rather, she reasonably assumed that by telling Mr. Lieberman that she wanted to purchase "health insurance" that, as an insurance agent, he would understand that she wanted coverage for physician office visits. Mr. Lieberman, rather than providing the insurance coverage which he knew or should have known W.E. was seeking, coverage which included physician office visits, suggested that she purchase the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. While Mr. Lieberman attempted to give some limited explanation of his plan to W.E., based upon the manner in which he explained his plan at hearing, it is understandable that W.E. did not understand what she was purchasing, or, more specifically, that the plan, while including some health care coverage, did not include coverage for physician office visits. On September 12, 2002, Mr. Lieberman sold or arranged for the sale of the Plan Products, as more fully described in Findings of Fact 9 through 25, to W.E.: W.E. signed an application for membership in the American Contract Bridge League (Stipulated Facts); W.E. wrote a check for her membership in the American Contract Bridge League (Stipulated Facts); W.E. signed an application and wrote checks for the Chamber Card and a United American Hospital Insurance Plan (Stipulated Facts); and W.E. signed an application for a Major Medical Insurance Plan from U.S. Life and wrote a check to Seabury & Smith. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman knew or should have known that he was selling W.E. a product which she was not interested in purchasing and that he was not providing her with a significant part of the insurance coverage she was interested in purchasing, coverage of physician office visits. While Mr. Lieberman gave some limited explanation of what the Chamber Card was, he did not fully explain to W.E. that it was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; that it would not pay for physician office visits; or that it only provided some unspecified discount on the cost of physician office visits. W.E. did not understand what she was purchasing. She even believed incorrectly that she had not been provided any insurance at all by Mr. Lieberman. While this incorrect assumption was based in part upon comments she perceived were made by a Department investigator, her comments show that she was unknowledgeable about insurance and, therefore, placed her full reliance on upon Mr. Lieberman. Even though W.E. issued separate checks made payable to "A.C.B.L." (the American Contract Bridge League), Seabury & Smith (for the Major Medical Insurance Plan), United American (for the Hospital Insurance Plan), and National Medical Services (for the Chamber Card); signed an Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and an Acknowledgement & Disclosures (both of which are quoted, infra, in Finding of Fact 35); and signed a document titled "Medical Benefits Plan” which contained an acknowledgement (quoted, infra. In Finding of Fact 36), W.E., unlike Mr. Lieberman, did not understand that she was purchasing a product which she had not requested and did not want. The Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and Acknowledgement & Disclosures signed by W.E. provided the following: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER I understand that the US Life Catastrophic Insurance Policy is being purchased through the mail from Seabury & Smith (Group Insurance Plans), who are the brokers for that plan. Although I am purchasing other insurance from Charles Lieberman, I realize that Mr. Lieberman is in no way representing Seabury & Smith or US Life and that he is only making me aware that this plan is available. I acknowledge that it is my sole responsibility to review this plan and its features to determine suitability once the policy is received. Insured Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLOSURES I hereby acknowledge that I am purchasing insurance that covers approximately 75% of the first $10,000 in the hospital then covers 100% hospitalization above $25,000. Although my PHCS PPO Access/Medical Savings Card (which is not insurance) will, in most cases, reduce this potential liability; through negotiated savings, it is not guaranteed to eliminate it in it [sic] entirety. INSURED DATE The foregoing Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement & Disclosures are misleading at best, and deceiving at worst. While the Acknowledgement & Disclosures includes the language "which is not insurance," that language is included after the terms "PHCS PPO Access/Medical Savings Card," terms which are not clearly identified or explained and are, along with other terminology used in the Disclosures (i.e., "PPO" and "copay") reasonably associated with health-care insurance. More importantly, the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement & Disclosures do not explain that physician office visits are not being provided through health care insurance. Finally, W.E. was not given an opportunity by Mr. Lieberman to read the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer, the Acknowledgement & Disclosures, or any other documents shown to her by Mr. Lieberman. He simply placed most of the documents which she had to sign in front of her with only the part she was required to sign visible and told her to sign them, which she did. The following acknowledgment was also contained in a document titled "Medical Benefits Plan" which W.E. signed: By signing below, I agree that all information provided above is complete, accurate, and truthful. I recognize that because of the high cost of health insurance, National Medical Savings, plan administrator, has attempted to put together a "medical savings/benefit plan" which allows clients to purchase reasonably priced hospitalization insurance from well known a- rated insurance companies and combine it with a product which is not insurance to better suit the clients' needs. I understand that anything associated with the PPO repricing or copay rebates is part of the "medical savings plan" and is in no way to be considered as insurance, but rather as an affordable alternative to satisfy the need to reduce medical costs. Like the Acknowledgments quoted in Finding of Fact 35, this acknowledgement, which appears after a paragraph titled "Pre- Authorized Payment Plan" on the form, is misleading. It is not clear that it is referring to the Chamber Card, it contains terms normally associated with insurance coverage in spite of the disclaimer, and Mr. Lieberman gave W.E. no reasonable opportunity to read the disclaimer before having her sign it. After enrolling W.E. in the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, Mr. Lieberman mailed all the documents which W.E. had signed on September 12, 2002, to her. This was her first realistic opportunity to read the documents. After receiving the documents concerning the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, W.E. cancelled all of the Plan Products. Although there was some language in the Acknowledgement and Disclosures and the form titled "Medical Benefits Plan" signed by W.E. indicating that some part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan was not insurance, due to the ambiguity of the language of the Acknowledgement and the disclaimer, the lack of opportunity that W.E. had to read the documents, the other language normally associated with insurance used in the documents, and the lack of coherent explanation provided by Mr. Lieberman, it is found that, as to W.E., Mr. Lieberman: Did not inform her that the Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; "Portrayed" the Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan, or policy; and Sold her products, none of which provided insurance coverage for the cost of physician office visits. Customer A.H. (Count II of the Administrative Complaint). Prior to April 11, 2003, Mr. Lieberman contacted and spoke to A.H. by telephone. A.H. told Mr. Lieberman that she was interested in purchasing health insurance, including insurance covering physician office visits, with co-pay, and hospitalization expenses, with a deductible. On April 11, 2003, A.H. met with Mr. Lieberman (Stipulated Facts) at his home to discuss purchasing health-care insurance. She again explained to Mr. Lieberman that she was interested in a policy that covered physician office visits, with a co-pay, and hospitalization expenses, with a deductible. Mr. Lieberman, rather than providing insurance coverage which he knew or should have known A.H. was seeking, coverage which included physician office visits, suggested that she purchase the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. While Mr. Lieberman attempted to give some limited explanation of his plan to A.H., based upon the manner in which he explained his plan at hearing, it is understandable that A.H. did not understand what she was purchasing, or, more specifically, that the plan, while including some health care coverage, did not include coverage for physician office visits. On April 11, 2003, Mr. Lieberman sold or arranged for the sale of the same Plan Products to A.H. that he had sold to W.E., described in Finding of Fact 30, supra. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman knew or should have known that he was selling A.H. a product which she was not interested in purchasing and that he was not providing her with a significant part of the insurance coverage she was interested in purchasing, coverage of physician office visits. While Mr. Lieberman gave some limited explanation of what the Chamber Card was, he did not fully explain to A.H. that it was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; that it would not pay for physician office visits; or that it only provided some unspecified discount on the cost of physician office visits. Like W.E., A.H. signed the Acknowledgment and Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement and Disclosures quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 35, and the disclaimer quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 36. The Acknowledgements and the disclaimer were deficient for the same reasons described in Findings of Fact 35 and 36. Like W.E., even though A.H. issued separate checks made payable to "A.C.B.L." (the American Contract Bridge League), Seabury & Smith (for the Major Medical Insurance Plan), United American (for the Hospital Insurance Plan), and National Medical Services (for the Chamber Card); signed the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and an Acknowledgement & Disclosures; and signed the disclaimer contained in a form titled "Medical Benefits Plan," A.H., unlike Mr. Lieberman, did not understand that she was purchasing a product which she had not requested and did not want. Having explained to Mr. Lieberman that she wanted a policy that covered physician office visits and not having been told that was not what she was purchasing, she simply relied upon Mr. Lieberman. After enrolling A.H. in the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, Mr. Lieberman mailed all the documents which A.H. had signed on April 11, 2003, to her. Some time after receiving the documents concerning the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, A.H. cancelled all of the Plan Products. Although there was some language in the Acknowledgement and Disclosures and the form titled "Medical Benefits Plan" signed by A.H. indicating that some part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan was not insurance, due to the ambiguity of the language of the Acknowledgement and the Disclaimer, the other language normally associated with insurance used in the documents, and the lack of coherent explanation provided by Mr. Lieberman, it is found that, as to A.H., Mr. Lieberman: Did not inform her that the Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; "Portrayed" the Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan, or policy; and Sold her products, none of which provided insurance coverage for the cost of physician office visits. Customer R.G. (Count III of the Administrative Complaint). R.G. did not testify at the final hearing. The factual allegations of Count III of the Administrative Complaint were not proved. Customer J.E. (Count IV of the Administrative Complaint). Prior to January 17, 2003, J.E. spoke with Mr. Lieberman by telephone. J.E. explained to Mr. Lieberman that he was interested in purchasing health insurance to replace the Blue Cross/Blue Shield health-care insurance he currently had. On January 17, 2003, J.E. met with Mr. Lieberman (Stipulated Facts) at his home to discuss purchasing health-care insurance. He explained to Mr. Lieberman that he was interested in a policy to replace his current policy with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. J.E. specifically requested a policy that covered physician office visits. Mr. Lieberman, rather than providing insurance coverage which he knew or should have known J.E. was seeking, coverage which included physician office visits, suggested that he purchase the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan. While Mr. Lieberman attempted to give some limited explanation of his plan to J.E., based upon the manner in which he explained his plan at hearing, it is understandable that J.E. did not understand what he was purchasing, or, more specifically, that the plan, while including some health care coverage, did not include coverage for physician office visits. On January 17, 2003, Mr. Lieberman sold or arranged for the sale to J.E. of the same Plan Products he sold to W.E. described in Finding of Fact 30, supra. (Stipulated Facts). Mr. Lieberman knew or should have known that he was selling J.E. a product which he was not interested in purchasing and that he was not providing him with a significant part of the insurance coverage he was interested in purchasing, coverage for physician office visits. While Mr. Lieberman gave some limited explanation of what the Chamber Card was, he did not fully explain to J.E. that it was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; that it would not pay for physician office visits; or that it only provided some unspecified discount on the costs of physician office visits. Like W.E. and A.H., J.E. also signed the Acknowledgment and Disclaimer and the Acknowledgement and Disclosures quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 35, and the disclaimer quoted, supra, in Finding of Fact 36. The Acknowledgements and the disclaimer were deficient for the same reasons described in Findings of Fact 35 and 36. Like W.E. and A.H., even though J.E.. issued separate checks made payable to "A.C.B.L." (the American Contract Bridge League), Seabury & Smith (for the Major Medical Insurance Plan), United American (for the Hospital Insurance Plan), and National Medical Services (for the Chamber Card); signed the Acknowledgement & Disclaimer and an Acknowledgement & Disclosures; and signed the disclaimer contained in a form titled "Medical Benefits Plan," J.E., unlike Mr. Lieberman, did not understand that he was purchasing a product which he had not requested and did not want. Having explained to Mr. Lieberman that he wanted a policy that covered physician office visits and not having been told that was not what he was purchasing, he simply relied upon Mr. Lieberman. After enrolling J.E. in the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, Mr. Lieberman mailed all the documents which J.E. had signed on January 17, 2003, to him. Some time after receiving the documents concerning the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan, J.E. cancelled all of the Plan Products. Although there was some language in the Acknowledgement and Disclosures and the form titled "Medical Benefits Plan" signed by J.E. indicating that some part of the Lieberman Medical Benefits Plan was not insurance, due to the ambiguity of the language of the Acknowledgement and the disclaimer, the lack of opportunity to read the documents before he signed them, the other language normally associated with insurance used in the documents, and the lack of coherent explanation provided by Mr. Lieberman, it is found that, as to J.E., Mr. Lieberman: Did not inform him that the Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan, or policy; "Portrayed" the Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan, or policy; and Sold him products, none of which provided insurance coverage for the cost of physician office visits. The Administrative Complaint. On January 26, 2004, the Department issued a four- count Administrative Complaint against Mr. Lieberman. (Stipulated Facts).7 The Administrative Complaint contains four counts, one each for Mr. Lieberman's association with W.E. (Count I), A.H. (Count II), R.G. (Count III), and J.E. (Count IV). The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lieberman's conduct with all four individuals violated Section 626.611(6), (7), and (8), Florida Statutes, and Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that, as to A.H., Mr. Lieberman violated Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. In support of the alleged statutory violations, the Department alleged, in part, that with regard to all four individuals: Mr. Lieberman "did not inform [his customers] that The Chamber Card was not an insurance program, plan or policy"; Mr. Liberman "portrayed The Chamber Card as an insurance program, plan or policy"; and That "[n]one of the products you, CHARLES STEVEN LIEBERMAN, sold to [W.E., A.H., R.G., and J.E.] provide insurance coverage for the cost of doctors' visits."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Charles Steven Lieberman violated Sections 626.611(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, and IV of the Administrative Code; dismissing Count III of the Administrative Code; and suspending his licenses for a period of 12 months from the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 31st day of August, 2004.
