The Issue Whether the surgery to correct complications from non- covered cosmetic surgery are covered under the State of Florida self-insured health plan?
Findings Of Fact Sharon Lett, Petitioner, was initially hired by the State of Florida on October 1, 1986, and began participating in the State's self-insured health plan known as the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization Plan, or State PPO Plan. Pre-existing conditions were covered after 365 days. In June 1985, Lett had bilateral silicone breast implants placed under the pectoral muscles. This occurred before she was covered under any of the state-sponsored health insurance plans. The implant surgery was performed for purely cosmetic reasons. Lett continued to work for the State until her retirement and was covered under the State's health insurance plan. Upon her retirement she continued her coverage under the State PPO Plan. In 1997, while covered by the plan, Lett sought medical intervention for problems related to the implants. She had concerns about the implants leaking and there were indications in the form of "lumps" and x-ray images which indicated the implants were leaking. There are some clinical studies which indicate that leaking implants are a potential health problem. The "lumps" and leakage decrease the ability to properly diagnose breast cancer. For patients who have a higher risk for breast cancer, these difficulties in diagnosis place the implanted patients at greater risk. Lett is diagnosed as being at greater risk for breast cancer. Both of her implants have leaked. Lett sought removal of the implants beginning in 1997. The State's PPO Plan has denied approval of the surgical procedure to remove the implants because the implant surgery was originally for cosmetic purposes. The latest denial was by letter dated September 27, 2002. The Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI) is responsible for the management of the State's group insurance programs, to include the PPO Plan. The State's PPO Plan is administered under contract by Florida Blue Cross and Blue Shield. In support of her latest request for payment for the surgery to remove the implants, Lett provided DSGI the following: Medical Report of Marguerite Barnett, M.D., (Respondent's Exhibit 4), dated May 23, 2002. Clinical Record Progress Notes by Frank B. Vasey, M.D., for visit on April 15, 2002. Lett also provided a diagnostic report by Mary E. Swain, M.D., dated June 1, 2000. The DSGI agrees that the reports of Drs. Barnett and Vasey accurately describe Petitioner's medical condition and accurately identify the etiology of the condition that necessitates the surgery Petitioner seeks. At the time Lett initially enrolled in the State PPO Plan, the benefits document in effect was State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, as Amended on October 1, 1986. Section VII, Exclusions, of the 1986 Benefits Document provides: Services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A. However, cosmetic surgery is a covered service if it is: in connection with the correction of a congenital anomaly for an eligible dependent born while family coverage is in force and performed while the Plan is in force, a medically necessary procedure in the correction of an abnormal bodily function, or for reconstruction to an area of the body which has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided such alteration occurred while the insured was covered under the Plan. Section VIII, Limitations, of the 1986 Benefits Document provides: The following limitations shall apply under the Plan: A. Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is covered by the Plan if such surgery or treatment is the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under the Plan and actually performed while the Plan is in force, except as provided under Section XIII and XIV of this Benefit Document. Section XIII deals with termination of an insured's coverage and is not applicable here. Section XIV deals with termination of the program and is not applicable here. At the time Lett requested approval for the surgery to remove the implants, the benefits document in effect was State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document effective January 1, 2000 (hereafter, 2000 Benefits Document). The 2000 Benefits Document states regarding services not covered by the plan that cosmetic surgery is not covered unless it is: A result of a covered accident if the accident happens and the surgery or treatment is performed while the person is covered by this health insurance plan, For correction of a congenital anomaly for an eligible dependent born while the employee has family coverage and performed while the dependent is covered by this health insurance plan, A medically necessary procedure to correct an abnormal bodily function, For reconstruction to an area of the body that has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided the alteration occurred while the person was covered by this health insurance plan, For breast reconstructive surgery and the prosthetic devices related to a mastectomy. "Mastectomy" means the removal of all or part of the breast for medically necessary reasons as determined by a licensed physician, and "breast reconstructive surgery" means surgery to reestablish symmetry between the two breast, . . . Complications resulting from non-covered services, except complications of pregnancy defined on pages 49-50, are excluded from coverage generally. See 2000 Benefit Document, page 31, paragraph 53. It is noted that the 1986 Benefit Document does not have a provision similar to that cited in paragraph 21, above. Under the 1986 Benefit Document, cosmetic surgery would not have been covered, but surgery necessary to address complications from non-covered services was not limited or excluded. The problems suffered by Lett did not arise until after the time limit excluding pre-existing conditions had expired or run.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Lett 240 Starmount Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William Simon, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents and the regulation of the insurance business in Florida. Respondent, Richard M. Rinker, was licensed by the Petitioner as a health insurance agent engaged in the business of soliciting, selling and servicing health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company. Levon H. and Joan D. Sprague, husband and wife, moved to Florida from New York in August, 1991. Prior to moving to Florida, the Spragues operated a restaurant in New York and purchased health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for themselves and some of their employees. They also owned a H.I.P. policy which was similar to a health maintenance organization, but both that coverage and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were dropped when they moved to Florida. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Sprague were getting older, and because both had indications of possible future health problems based on experience and family history, upon the recommendation of Mrs. Sprague's father, who had purchased coverage from Respondent and was satisfied with the service received, they contacted Respondent and met with him about purchasing health insurance. The first meeting was on January 6, 1992. At that time, the Sprague's made Respondent aware of the fact that they had no health insurance coverage at that time and that they wanted to purchase coverage which would give them 100 percent reimbursement of all bills for medical care rendered. After some discussion, they agreed to accept less coverage for doctors' bills and other professional services, but were quite adamant in reiterating they wanted a policy that would cover 100 percent of the cost of hospitalization. They emphasized this because of Mr. Sprague's family's history of heart problems and they wanted to be sure the hospital expense would be covered in full. They felt the doctors could wait a while for payment of the full amount of their bills. During the course of his presentation, Respondent utilized a document called a National States Limited Medical-Surgical Hospital Confinement Plan which purportedly outlined the specifics of policy coverage. Under that portion entitled "Specific Benefits", the form read, "This policy pays percent of usual and customary expenses of the following type:". Under the blank space, in smaller type, were the numbers "10, 20, 30, 40". In the blank area, Respondent, by hand, inserted 80 percent. Above, and to the right of that insertion, he also placed the numbers, "100 percent" and "40 percent." Respondent explains this as being his attempt to provide answers to questions asked of him by Mrs. Sprague. He noted that his company does not offer a major medical policy such as desired by the Spragues, and that the only way he could provide coverage close to that which they wanted was to combine policies. Using a yellow highlighter, he also highlighted the words, "Doctor's charges", "doctor's office", "clinic", "hospital", "home", and "surgical or medical center." He also highlighted the terms "annual mammography screening" because Mrs. Sprague had specifically inquired about coverage of that procedure. On that visit, Respondent sold the Spragues two policies each. These were "MSH-1" and "MSH-2" policies which, the Spragues recall, Respondent indicated would provide the total coverage they wanted. Initially, the premium was to be $3,600.00 for the year, but when the Spragues indicated they could not afford that much, after calling his office, Respondent was able to offer them 6 months coverage for one half the price. They were satisfied with this and accepted the policies. Mr. Rinker received as his commission 45 percent of the premium paid in by the Spragues for the first year of the policy. When he departed the Spragues' home, he left with them the policy outline he utilized in his presentation, a large manila envelope containing information regarding his office hours and phone number, and a MSP form required by law. The coverage was not heavily used at first. When, during the first six month period, claims were initially denied because of the waiting period, the Spragues accepted that. After the expiration of the waiting period, all claims submitted for doctors' visits and mammography were covered to at least 80 percent of the amount expected by the Spragues. This was, however, because of the combined benefits paid by the two policies. Neither policy, alone, paid 100 percent percent of the claim. The Spragues were satisfied with this because it was not hospitalization. Later on, however, it became apparent that Mr. Sprague would have to enter the hospital for coronary bypass surgery, and he was admitted on an emergency basis. Before the surgery was done, however, the Spragues wanted to be sure the hospital bills would be paid in full, and they had their daughter- in-law, who had extensive experience in the insurance business prior to that time, to examine the policies. Her review of the policies generated some questions in her mind as to whether they provided 100 percent coverage of all hospital costs. To satisfy herself and her in-laws, utilizing the telephone number for Respondent on the materials left by him with the Spragues, she contacted him and asked, specifically, whether the policies he had sold to the Spragues, provided the 100 percent coverage they desired. His answer was somewhat evasive and non- responsive to her inquiry. He said, "Don't worry. She'll [Ms. Sprague] be able to sleep at night. She has a good policy." This did not satisfy either Ms. Sprague or her mother-in-law, and so she called Respondent again. During this second conversation he admitted that for at least a part of the cost, there was a 40 percent coinsurance provision. Respondent claims that during these calls, Ms. Sprague did not tell him that her father-in-law was to have surgery but only told him about tests. The tests were covered and the bills therefor paid by National States. By the time of these calls, however, Mr. Sprague was already in the hospital and facing the surgery the following morning. There was little that could be done. Mr. Sprague wanted to cancel the surgery but his wife would not allow this and the operation was accomplished. The hospital bills received by the Spragues amounted to approximately $140,000. Of this, the insurance company paid approximately $18,000. Ultimately, the Spragues and the hospital were able to reach an agreement for settlement of the obligation for $40,000. In order to satisfy this, Mr. Sprague was required to liquidate all his investments. He still owes the doctors a substantial sum but is making periodic payments to liquidate those obligations. The policies which Respondent sold to the Spragues were limited medical and surgical expense policies which pay only a limited percentage of incurred medical expenses over a limited period of time. Neither policy pays 100 percent of any medical or surgical expense. Respondent did not clearly communicate this fact to the Spragues. They suffered from the misconception that the policies sold to them by the Respondent paid 100 percent coverage for hospital expense, 80 percent for doctor fees, and 40 percent for medication. Petitioner presented no evidence that what Respondent did was below the standards accepted of sales agents within the health insurance industry. On the other hand, James Quinn, an insurance agent since 1975, who has taught life and health insurance and the legal responsibility of agents in the health insurance area with the approval of the Department since 1985, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Quinn noted that there are three types of medical policies in use, including basic medical expense, major medical, and comprehensive major medical. The first of these, basic medical expense, permits liberal underwriting and pays policy limits. In Mr. Quinn's opinion, based on the age and preexisting conditions that the Sprague's have, major medical coverage, like they wanted, would cost between seven and ten thousand dollars annually, excluding deductibles. Health insurance coverage outlines, such as used by Respondent in his presentation to the Spragues are, according to Mr. Quinn, reasonably self-explanatory and are left with the insured either when the policy is applied for or is delivered. In the former case, the client is able to read the outline and cancel the policy before delivery, if he so desires. In the latter case, the insured has a set number of days to read the policy after delivery and cancel if he so desires. These outlines do not substitute for the policy, however, and generally, the agent prefers to deliver the policy personally so he can go over it again with the insured. According to Mr. Quinn, it is difficult to explain coverage to prospective insureds because of their unfamiliarity with the terminology and the available benefits. He concluded that the action of the Respondent, in issue here, whereby he used the coverage outline to explain the coverages to the Spragues, was consistent with proper agent conduct and was within industry standards. He also concluded that based on what Respondent had available to sell to the Spragues, he sold them the best package he could, at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this matter finding Respondent, Richard Michael Rinker, guilty of a violation of Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6); 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(a)(1), (1)(e)(1), and (1)(k)(1), Florida statutes, and suspending his license as a health insurance agent for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0089 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to finding Mr. Quinn is an expert regarding insurance standards and business practices, but rejected as insinuating those opinions are binding on the Hearing Officer. Rejected notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Quinn. Accepted, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. Second sentence accepted as to the furnishing, but the quality of the information was less than clear. Balance accepted. & 8. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration of and final agency action on the Written Report and Recommended Order entered on May 25, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit A. . Pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes an informal hearing was conducted via written submissions, before Hearing Officer, Donald A. Dowdell. After review of the record, including testimony and admitted exhibits, and being otherwise fully apprised in all material premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the underlined introductory heading to paragraph 42 of the Written Report and Recommended Order is rejected, and the following substituted therefore: The holding in the case of One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) does not dictate the result in this case, in part, because it dealt with reimbursements for services rendered by ambulatory surgical centers rather than, as here, hospital outpatient care. At the time One Beacon was decided, the two statutory sections governing reimbursements for hospital outpatient surgical services and ambulatory surgical centers treated the respective Filed September 29, 2010 10:08 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. reimbursements differently, so that different results would appropriately be obtained from the application of those statutory provisions. (The One Beacon Court held that by deleting all reference to individual providers, the Legislature intended to base an ambulatory surgical center's reimbursement upon the usual and customary charges for that geographic location.) Hence, the holding in One Beacon could logically be limited to ambulatory surgical center reimbursements on that basis. However, in the interim, the statutory section governing hospital outpatient care has been amended and no longer references an individual hospital’s fees by referencing the individual hospital or utilizing the terms “each” or ‘their’. Section 440.13(12), Fla. Stat. presently provides that: . “All compensable charges for hospital outpatient care shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of usual and customary charges, except as otherwise provided by this subsection.” Thus, the rationale underlying the One Beacon holding would now appear to be applicable to hospital outpatient care. However, as the Hearing Officer correctly states in his introduction to Paragraph 39, “Unless and until the Department adopts a rule -setting forth a different method for determining hospital reimbursement, it must act in accordance with its currently adopted rule”. See Gessier v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 627 So.2d 501 (Fla. 4" DCA 1993); University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 610 So.2d 1432 (Fla. 1# DCA 1991). Moreover, it is well established that until and unless an agency rule is successfully challenged in a Section 120.56 proceeding, the rule is presumptively valid and must be given legal effect by the agency. Board of Optometry v. Florida Society of Ophthalmology, 532 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. den. 542 So.2d 1333. In that regard, it should be noted that the Department has, indeed, initiated rule-making proceedings to modify the current rule (and the attendant manual), to utilize a methodology for reimbursing hospital outpatient care that is not based upon a hospital's individual charges. Although the Hearing Officer's recommendation remains unchanged, the Department is rejecting paragraphs 16, 32, the introductory heading to paragraph 42, and 48 of the Recommended Order to the extent, if any, these paragraphs were intended to preclude an application of the rationale of the One Beacon case to the present statute governing hospital outpatient care. This substitution more clearly and correctly states the current law governing reimbursement for hospital outpatient care, and is as or more reasonable than the paragraphs it replaces. ITIs HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation made by the Hearing Officer is adopted by the Department, and that the Department's Determination requiring Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company to pay additional reimbursements of $13,234.53 to Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center is hereby affirmed. DONE and ORDERED this obey of August, 2010. Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Findings Of Fact In its 1969 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, entitled "Medical Assistance for the Needy," providing the original state legislative basis and authority for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program. Section 409.266(2), Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized the Florida Department of Social Services or any other department that the Governor might designate to: Enter into such agreement with other state agencies or any agency of the federal government and accept such duties with respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary to implement the provisions of subsection (1) and to qualify for federal aid including compliance with provisions of Public Law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965" [estab- lishing Title XIX of the Social Security Act] Section 409.266(3), Florida Statutes, as enacted, stated that: The Department is authorized and directed to prepare and operate a program and budget in order to implement and comply with the provisions of public law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965." No provisions of Florida law other than Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized any agency to perform any function specifically to implement the Medicaid program. The State of Florida formally commenced participation in the Medicaid program effective January 1, 1970. At all times pertinent to this controversy, respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or its predecessor agencies (referred to as "HRS"), has been and continues to be the "State Agency" identified in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(5), and charged under Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as amended, with the formulation of a State Plan for Medical Assistance ("State Plan"), 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a, and with the ongoing responsibility for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. Since Florida's entry into the Medicaid program in 1970, HRS has been authorized essentially to "[e]nter into such agreements with appropriate agents, other State agencies, or any agency of the Federal Government and accept such duties in respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary or needed to implement the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act pertaining to medical assistance." Section 409.266(2)(a), Fla. Stat., as amended. HRS has never been authorized to enter into any agreements, accept any duties, or perform any functions with respect to the Medicaid program that are in contravention of or not authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act and implementing federal regulations and requirements. As a prerequisite for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program, HRS prepared and filed with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ("HEW") a State Plan, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and pursuant to its delegated legislative authority set forth in Section 409.266(2)(a), Florida Statutes. (In May, 1980, HEW was redesignated the United States Department of Health and Human Services, but for purposes of this action both shall be referred to as HEW.) C.W. Hollingsworth was the HRS official who had the responsibility for supervising the preparation, the filing, and for obtaining the approval of HEW of Florida's initial State Plan. Florida's initial State Plan was approved by HEW effective January 1, 1970. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, Title XIX of the Social Security Act required state plans to provide for the payment of the reasonable cost of inpatient hospital services. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid required the State Plan to provide for reimbursement of Medicaid inpatient hospital services furnished by those hospitals also participating in the Medicare program, applying the same standards, cost reimbursement principles, and methods of cost apportionment used in computing reimbursement to such hospitals under Medicare. 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a), and (b), 34 Fed. Reg. 1244 (January 25, 1969). At the time that Florida entered the Medicaid program, Medicare cost reimbursement principles in effect governing reimbursement for the cost of inpatient hospital services required payment of a participating hospital's actual and reasonable costs of providing such services to Medicare beneficiaries, and, moreover, that such payment be made on the basis of the hospital's current costs rather than upon the costs of a prior period or upon a fixed negotiated rate. 42 U.S.C. Section 1395x(v)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. Sections 405.451(c)(2), 405.402(a) [later renumbered 42 C.F.R. Section 405.451(c)(2) and Section 405.402(a)]. Such Medicare principles and standards also provided for interim payments to be made to the hospital during its fiscal year. At the conclusions of the subject fiscal year, the hospital was required to file a cost report wherein the hospital included all of its costs of providing covered inpatient services to Medicare beneficiaries. A settlement or "retroactive adjustment" process then was required to reconcile the amount of interim payments received by the hospital during the fiscal period with its allowable costs incurred during that period. If the hospital had been overpaid during the year, it was required to refund the amount of that overpayment to the Medicare program. Conversely, if the hospital had been underpaid during the year, the Medicare program was required to make an additional payment to the hospital, retroactively, in the amount of the underpayment. 20 C.F.R. Sections 405.402(b)(2), 405.451(b)(2). Essentially the same Medicare principles and standards governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services described in the two preceding paragraphs have been in effect at all times pertinent to this controversy. 42 C.F.R. Section 405.401, et seq. Florida's approved State Plan as of January 1, 1970, governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under the Medicaid program, committed HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The only versions of Florida's State Plan provisions that have been approved by HEW and that have governed HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, each commit HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Attached as an appendix to the recommended order is the form agreement drafted with the supervision of C.W. Hollingsworth, which has been in use from January 1, 1970, until July 1, 1981. From the inception of the Florida Medicaid program, and as a prerequisite for participation therein, a hospital has been required to execute a copy of the form agreement. A hospital may not participate in the Medicaid program without having executed such an agreement, nor may it propose any amendments thereto. The intent and effect of the form agreement is to require HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a percentage allowance in lieu of the retroactive adjustments ("percentage allowances") in determining the rates that hospitals will be paid for providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a new percentage allowance each year based on hospital cost trends. The meanings of the terms "allowance in lieu of retroactive adjustments" in all pertinent state plans and "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" contained in the form agreement are identical. In drafting the form agreement HRS intended that the "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" be set at a level sufficient to ensure that hospitals participating in the Medicaid program would be reimbursed their "reasonable costs" of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. At all times pertinent to this controversy, participating hospitals, like petitioner, have been reimbursed by HRS for inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients in the following manner: Within ninety (90) days following the close of its fiscal year, the partici- pating hospital files a Form 2551 or 2552 Annual Statement of Reimbursable Costs, as applicable, with both Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., the major fiscal intermediary respon- sible for the administration of Part A of the federal Medicare program in the State of Florida, and with HRS. This document, also referred to as a "cost report" details various hospital and financial statistical data relating to the patient care activities engaged in by the hospital during the sub- ject fiscal period. Upon receipt of the participating hospital's cost report for a fiscal period, HRS makes an initial determination based upon Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards of the hospital's total allow- able inpatient costs, charges, and total patient days during the subject fiscal period, and then determines an inpatient per diem reimbursement rate for the period. To the inpatient per diem reimburse- ment rate is then added a percentage allow- ance in lieu of making any further retroactive corrective adjustments in reimbursement which might have been due the hospital applicable to the reporting period. The adjusted inpa- tient per diem reimbursement rate is applied prospectively, and remains in effect until further adjustments in the rate are required. If HRS determines that total inpa- tient Medicaid reimbursement to a partici- pating hospital during a fiscal period exceeds the hospital's allowable and rea- sonable costs of rendering such covered inpatient services applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards, then the hospital is required to remit to HRS the amount of such overpayment. If, however, HRS determines that the total inpatient Medicaid reimbursement received by a participating hospital is less than the hospital's actual and reason- able costs of rendering such covered inpa- tient services to Medicaid patients during the period applying Medicare cost reimburse- ment principles and standards, no further retroactive corrective adjustments are made; provided, however, that should an overpayment occur in a fiscal period, it may be offset and applied retroactively against an under- payment to the participating hospital which occurred during the next preceding fiscal period only. HRS has used the following "percentage allowances" in determining Medicaid reimbursement rates for inpatient hospital services: a. January 1, 1970 - June 30, 1972 . . . 12 percent July 1, 1972 - approximately March 30, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . 9 percent Approximately March 31, 1976 - June 30, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 percent Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not recomputed the "percentage allowance" on an annual basis. Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not based the "percentage allowance" that it has applied in determining Medicaid inpatient hospital reimbursement rates upon hospital cost trends. HRS has used no technical methodology based upon hospital cost trends to develop any of the "percentage allowances." At least since January 1, 1974, HRS's "percentage allowances" have been less than the corresponding average annual increases in the costs incurred by Florida hospitals of providing inpatient hospital services. Prior to March 30, 1976, all of HRS's published regulations addressing reimbursement of participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients required HRS to reimburse such hospitals in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In certain internal documents, Petitioner's Exhibits P-44 and P-12, HRS states that the average costs of providing inpatient hospital services in the State of Florida rose at least 18 percent during calendar year 1975. In November, 1975, the Secretary of HRS was informed by HRS officials that HRS faced a projected budgetary deficit for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. A decision memorandum presented options to the HRS Secretary for reducing the projected deficit. Among such options presented to and approved by the HRS Secretary was to reduce the "percentage allowance" from 9 percent to 6 percent. The reduction of the "percentage allowance" by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent was effected in response to HRS's projected deficit, and was not based upon an analysis of hospital cost trends. HRS incorporated the 6 percent "percentage allowance" into its administrative rules which were published on March 30, 1976. In response to objections raised by the Florida Hospital Association to the reduction in the percentage allowance by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent, HRS officials reexamined that reduction. During HRS's reexamination of its previous "percentage allowance" reduction, HRS was aware of and acknowledged the fact that Florida hospital costs were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of both the earlier 9 percent and the resulting 6 percent "percentage allowance." In a memorandum dated September 13, 1976, from HRS official Charles Hall to the Secretary of HRS, Petitioner's Exhibit P-45, Charles Hall informed the Secretary that the methods and standards then used by HRS to reimburse participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients was out of compliance with federal requirements. Charles Hall further informed the Secretary that the reason HRS had not theretofore been cited by HEW for noncompliance was the manner in which the Florida State Plan had been drafted, i.e., that the State Plan required HRS to reimburse hospitals under Medicaid for the reasonable costs that they would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In a letter dated September 20, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-31, HEW informed HRS that HEW had received a complaint from the Florida Hospital Association that the methods HRS was actually using to reimburse hospitals for the costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients were in violation of Federal Regulation 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a). A proposed amendment to Florida's State Plan submitted by HRS to HEW in November, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-49, if approved, would have allowed HRS to reimburse hospitals for the cost of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients under methods differing from Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards (an "alternative plan"). "Alternative plans" have been permitted under applicable federal regulations since October 21, 1974. A state participating in the Medicaid program may elect to establish an "alternative plan, but may not implement such "alternative plan" without the prior written approval of HEW. Florida has not had in effect an "alternative plan" of reimbursing participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients that was formally approved by HEW at any time prior to July 1, 1981. By letter dated January 7, 1977, Petitioner's Exhibit P-32, HEW notified HRS that it had formally cited HRS for noncompliance with federal regulations governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under Medicaid. HRS acknowledged their noncompliance and between November, 1976, and October 30, 1977, HRS attempted to revise its proposed "alternative plan" on at least two occasions in an attempt to obtain HEW approval. In October, 1977, HRS withdrew its proposed "alternative plan" then pending with HEW. HRS then contracted with an outside consultant, Alexander Grant & Company, to assist in the formulation of a new "alternative plan" proposal. In January, 1978, Alexander Grant & Company delivered its draft of an "alternative plan" to HRS. In October, 1978, HRS submitted a draft "alternative plan" to HEW for review and comment, and HEW expected HRS to submit a formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW for its approval by November 1, 1978. HRS did not submit the formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW until August 12, 1980. In a letter dated February 21, 1979, from Richard Morris, HEW Regional Medicaid Director, Region IV, to United States Senator Richard Stone of Florida, Mr. Morris advised Senator Stone: For more than two years the Florida Medicaid Program has not met Federal Requirements for inpatient hospital services reimbursement. Their payment methodology under-reimburses certain hospitals year after year. The pros- pective interim per diem rate paid by Florida to hospitals includes a percentage allowance to cover increased costs during the forthcom- ing year that is consistently less than increased costs in some hospitals. If the payments are less than costs, the difference is not reimbursed. This results in underpay- ments. We have worked closely with Florida to develop an acceptable alternative system that would meet Federal requirements. To date, Florida has not implemented such a system despite having received informal HEW agreement on a draft plan developed more than a year ago. It is our understanding that this alternative plan is not a high priority item at this time. We will continue to work with HRS staff to secure Florida compliance re- garding this requirement. Petitioner's Exhibit P-46. Since August 12, 1980, HRS has submitted to HEW for its approval at least four more versions of an "alternative plan." Petitioner's Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. Each of these versions was approved by the Secretary of HRS, and HRS believes each to comply with applicable Florida law. Mr. Erwin Bodo, Ph.D., was and is the HRS official responsible for the development and drafting of Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. In June, 1981, HEW approved an "alternative plan" for the State of Florida (Exhibit P-152), and such "alternative plan" was implemented effective July 1, 1981. Until July 1, 1981, HRS continued to use the 6 percent "percentage allowance" to compute inpatient hospital reimbursement under Medicaid. Even after its repeal, Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, is applied by respondent in calculating reimbursement for Medicaid services provided between March 30, 1976, and July 1, 1981. From November 20, 1976, until July 1, 1981--the period in which HRS was attempting to secure HEW approval for an alternative plan--HRS was aware that the costs of inpatient hospital se vices were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of the 6 percent "percentage allowance." From September 1, 1976, through July 1, 1981, HRS has been out of compliance with its a proved State Plan provisions, and HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals-- including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Since the quarter ending December 31, 1976, until July 1, 1981, HEW has formally cited HRS as being in contravention of its approved State Plan provisions, and HEW (now HHS) regulations, governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals--including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION Petitioner, Pan American Hospital Corporation, is a not-for-profit corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner is a tax-exempt organization as determined by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has operated and continues to operate a duly licensed 146-bed, short-term acute care general hospital, located at 5959 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been and continues to be a duly certified provider of inpatient hospital services, eligible to participate in the Florida Medicaid program since January 27, 1974. The appendix to this recommended order is a true and correct copy of the "Participation Agreement" entered into between petitioner and HRS, whereunder, inter alia, petitioner became eligible to receive payment from HRS for covered inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been a certified "provider of services" participating in the Medicare program. During the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner did provide covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and became eligible for payment by HRS of its reasonable costs of providing such services, determined in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner timely filed all cost reports and other financial data with HRS or its contracting agents, including Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., to enable HRS to determine petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. During each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, to reimburse petitioner for its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, determined in accordance with applicable Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Such costs incurred by petitioner were reasonable, necessary, related to patient care, and less than customary charges within the meaning of those Medicare principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute, HRS and/or its contracting agent, Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., reviewed and audited the cost reports filed by petitioner, and as a result of such review and audits set or adjusted, as applicable, the Medicaid inpatient per diem reimbursement rate at which petitioner would be paid during the next succeeding fiscal period or until that rate was again adjusted. On May 3, 1976, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period in respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, petitioner received $86,469 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On February 14, 1979, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, petitioner received $199,328 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On September 29, 1978, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, petitioner received $6,083 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On March 13, 1980, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, petitioner received $178,506 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On June 30, 1981, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, petitioner received $302,347 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On or about June 30, 1981, the audit of petitioner's Medicaid cost report for the period ending March 31, 1980, was concluded. A formal Notice of Program Reimbursement had not been issued at the time of the hearing. MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED Respondent contends that these proceedings should be summarily concluded "for failure to join an indispensable party," viz., the Federal Government, because it "is Respondent's intention, should any liability result from this action, to make a claim for federal financial participation as to approximately fifty-nine percent of such liability . . . [See generally] 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-2(a)(2)." Motion to Dismiss, p. 2. This contention must fail for several reasons. Neither the Division of Administrative Hearings nor the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has the power or means to bring an unwilling party into a proceeding instituted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979). At most, "the presiding officer may, upon motion of a party, or upon his own initiative enter an order requiring that the absent person be notified of the proceeding and be given an opportunity to be joined as a party of record." Rule 28-5.107, Florida Administrative Code. There exists no administrative writ for joining a non-petitioning party in a substantial interest proceeding in the way judicial process can join a party within a court's jurisdiction in a pending judicial proceeding. The two cases respondent cites in support of its motion, Bannon v. Trammell, 118 So. 167 (Fla. 1928), and Heisler v. Florida Mortgage Title and Bonding Co., 142 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1932), are inapposite, because both cases involve judicial, not administrative proceedings. HRS does not really seek joinder of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; instead, HRS argues that the petition should be dismissed and the controversy relegated to federal court because it "believes that the Secretary [of the United States Department of Health and Human Services] will not succumb voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings." 2/ Motion to Dismiss, p. 3. Participation by the Department of Health and Human Services in the present proceedings would have been welcomed, as the Hearing Officer indicated at the prehearing conference, but neither the Department itself nor either of the parties requested such participation. In any event, petitioner is seeking additional reimbursement from respondent HRS, not from any federal agency. Medicaid providers like petitioner do not receive any funds directly from the Department of Health and Human Services. Since "[t]he contracts involved are clearly between the hospitals and [H]RS [, n]o third party requirement appears," Montana Deaconess Hospital v. Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 538 P.2d 1021, 1024 (Mont. 1975), and the Department of Health and Human Services is not an indispensable party to administrative proceedings arising out of contracts between HRS and Medicaid providers. HRS protests that it might find itself making additional reimbursement to petitioner, yet be deprived of the federal component of such expenditures. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1396b. This prospect is an unlikely one in view of the fact that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has repeatedly cited HRS for noncompliance because of under-reimbursements to Medicaid providers. If the Federal Government fails to contribute to any additional reimbursement, it would not be for want of a forum in which HRS could present its claim. There are administrative mechanisms within the Department of Health and Human Services, including its Grant Appeals Board. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1116(d). After exhaustion of administrative remedies, HRS would have access to the courts, if necessary. See Georgia v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 404 (N.D. Ga. 1977). There is no danger that HRS will be deprived of an opportunity to litigate any question about federal contribution because the United States Department of Health and Human Services is not a party to the present proceedings. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment was amended ore tenus at the final hearing to delete "and FYE March 31, 1981," on page 1 of the motion, after leave to amend was granted, without objection by respondent. As a technical matter, the motion is a misnomer, since substantial interest proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings eventuate in recommended orders, not judgments. But, petitioner's contention that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact is well founded. The parties have so stipulated. (T. 70; Mr. Weiss's letter of November 12, 1981.) At the time the petition was filed, the parties contemplated numerous factual disputes which, however, had all been resolved by the time of final hearing through the commendable efforts of counsel. In the absence of a disputed issue of material fact, the Administrative Procedure Act provides for informal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes (1979), "[u]nless otherwise agreed." Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979). On December 7, 1981, the parties filed their Stipulation and Agreement to proceed pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1979), notwithstanding the absence of any factual dispute. DISPUTE COGNIZABLE In the present case, as in Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 363 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), there "can be no doubt that the Department's contract . . . calls for agency action which potentially affects . . . substantial interests," 363 So.2d at 812, of the petitioning contractor. Cf. Solar Energy Control, Inc. v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 377 So.2d 746 (Fla 1st DCA 1979) (reh. den. 1980) (disappointed bidder substantially affected). See Section 120.52(10)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). In Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 363 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the petitioner sought "additional money and construction time under its contract," 363 So.2d at 813, with a state agency. The court found "no difficulty . . . with sovereign immunity," 363 So.2d at 813, and held that a contractor with a state agency could invoke the Administrative Procedure Act in order to enforce its contract, even though the contract purported to establish another method for settling the contract dispute. A clause in the contract at issue in the Graham Contracting case contemplated agency action outside the parameters of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in resolving certain disputes under the contract. In contrast, each of the successive contracts on which petitioner predicates its claim in the present case contains the following provision: "The hospital agrees to comply with the rules, policies, and procedures required by [HRS's] Division of Family Services for this program." Among the rules thus incorporated by reference into the contracts between petitioner and respondent is Rule 10C-7.35, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: An official representative of a facility participating in Medicaid, . . . or . . . representative, may appeal Medicaid Program policy, procedure, or administrative rulings whenever the provider feels there has been an unfair, illegal or inappropriate action by the Department affecting them or their facility. (1) Provider Appeals The Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, Chapter 120 F.S., provides for provider appeals and hearings, which are conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings in the Department of Administration. The spe- cific rule relative to the appeal and hearing process is Chapter 28-3 [sic] of the Florida Administrative Rules. . . Since, by reference to Rule 10C-7.35, Florida Administrative Code, the contract in the present case incorporates Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act is even clearer here than in the Graham Contracting case. THE MERITS The parties have stipulated that petitioner has been reimbursed by respondent less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services over the time period in question. Under-reimbursement of this kind is not authorized by Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, which incorporates the federal statutory requirement that hospitals which, like petitioner, provide Medicaid services be reimbursed by respondent for reasonable costs incurred, in accordance with an approved State Plan, and not some lesser amount. 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(13)(B), Pub. L. 89-97, Section 121(a) redesignated 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(13)(D), Pub. L. 90-248, Section 224(a). All Florida "State Plan provisions . . . approved by HEW and . . . govern[ing] HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, commit HRS to reimburse hospitals [like petitioner] that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards." Prehearing Stipulation, Paragraph 19. The record is clear. Respondent consistently reimbursed petitioner less than its reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services in order to cut its own expenses and in doing so jeopardized the entire Medicaid program. This cannot be condoned, even though respondent acted under color of law, viz., Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code [now repealed and declared invalid; see Pan American Hospital Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 81-1480R (DOAH; December 4, 1981)], and even though a lack of money or, at least, an apparent shortage was the reason for respondent's parsimony. The question remains, however, whether this dereliction on respondent's part should inure to the benefit of petitioner; and the answer turns on the construction of the agreement between the parties attached as an appendix to this order. Petitioner argues cogently that public policy has clearly been enunciated by statute to be full reimbursement for costs reasonably incurred by Medicaid providers in furnishing covered services. There can be no clearer expression of public policy than a statute duly enacted; and the reasons behind the full reimbursement policy are themselves compelling: to deal fairly with the providers, not only for fairness sake, but also to assure their participation in the program, and to remove any temptation to give indigent patients substandard care, inter alia. But, there is surely an overriding public policy requiring that a contractor with state government who voluntarily agrees to forego a claim against the public fisc be held to that agreement in administrative proceedings like these. The form agreement between petitioner and respondent, which they renewed annually, states: "It is understood that reimbursement will be made on the basis of an interim payment plan in the form of a per diem cost rate, plus a percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment. However, . . . in the event the hospital did not receive its audited reasonable costs in the year prior to the current year then the hospital may deduct from the refund the prior year deficiency." (Emphasis supplied.) The agreement thus contemplated under-reimbursement and specified the method for recoupment, if there was to be any. Any "retroactive payment adjustment," as the result of administrative proceedings or otherwise, is specifically ruled out. Elsewhere in the parties' agreement is found this language: [T]he fiscal responsibility of [respondent's] Division of Family Services is subjected [sic] to the appropriation and availability of funds to the Medicaid program . . . by the state legislature every year." The terms of the agreement make clear that under-reimbursement is not in itself a breach. Respondent's failure to compute annually a "new percentage . . . based on hospital cost trends" was attributable to a shortage of funds; and the agreement provided that respondent's "fiscal responsibility" was subject to just such a shortage. In sum, provisions of the agreement petitioner voluntarily entered into with respondent operate in much the same way as a liquidated damages clause and preclude the relief petitioner seeks. Petitioner's invocation of the parol evidence rule is unavailing. Even if the stipulated facts outside the four corners of the form agreement are looked to, the course of dealing between these parties buttresses the construction outlined above. The fact that respondent may have settled a case it litigated against another hospital in some other way, as asserted by petitioner, is technically irrelevant.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny the prayer of the petitioner for additional reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1981.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated April 4, 1994, alleges in a single count that Respondent, Edward Aloysius Garvey, violated various provisions of Chapter 626, F.S. by failing to reveal a proposed insured's pre-existing medical condition on an application for group health insurance. The issue in this proceeding is whether the violations occurred and if so, what license discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, Edward Aloysius Garvey, was licensed as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, health insurance agent and dental care contract salesman. On or about May 2, 1993, Mr. Garvey wrote an insurance application for group health insurance coverage for Patrica Foutt, of Palm Bay, Florida. Ms. Foutt was a new employee of Florida Diagnostic Imagery. The coverage was to have been provided by Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company. Because Florida Diagnostic Imagery changed group insurers several times, May 2, 1993, was one of several visits Mr. Garvey made to assist with enrollment of the employees. The enrollment and completion of applications took place in a small kitchen-like break room. Employees were in and out of the room. The enrollment forms were mostly completed by Mr. Garvey. He asked the questions and filled in the blanks with responses given by the employees. There is a section of the application form involving a series of medical conditions. The form requires a yes or no check mark, and an explanation for any "yes" response. One of the medical conditions in the series is disease or disorder of the heart or circulatory system; there also is a question of whether the applicant received any treatment, surgery, consultation or advice (including prescriptions) for any conditions within the last 10 years. Patrica Foutt's application form reflects a "yes" answer only for the latter question. On the space provided for explanation is this language: "1988 - Last check-up. Dr. Thomas Rose [and his address]. Excellent health-no problems". Mrs. Foutt signed the application beneath this language: I represent that the above statement and answers are true and complete. Also, I under- stand that no Agent, Broker or Representative has authority to bind coverage and no insurance will become effective unless approved in writing by the Company. I understand that no agent, broker or representative is allowed to permit me to answer any question inaccurately or untruthfully and I represent that such did not occur. I further understand that any material omission or medical information or material misrepresentation can result in rescission of coverage. I understand that any condition which was diagnosed or treated within the twelve (12) month period to the effective date of insurance will not be covered until the insurance has been in effect for twenty-four (24) months. Ms. Foutt has and, at the time the application was completed, had mitral valve prolapse. She claims she told Mr. Garvey that she had seen a cardiologist for this condition, but that Mr. Garvey said it was not significant enough to put on the form. Mr. Garvey denies that he was told about the condition. After the application was taken, the company issued a policy to Ms. Foutt. She later went to see Dr. Rose again with some chest pain and a little palpitations. After she filed a claim on her policy, the policy was rescinded. Sondra Henry was also employed at Florida Diagnostic Imagery in 1991. She was in the small room filling out her own application when she overheard Mr. Garvey's and Ms. Foutt's exchanges. She "believe[s] Ms. Foutt told Mr. Garvey that she suffered from micro valve prolapse and asked if it mattered". According to Ms. Henry, he replied "no, because it [was] a benign condition". (transcript pp 22-23) No evidence whatsoever was presented on micro valve prolapse, also referred to as "MVP". Nor was any competent evidence presented on why Ms. Foutt's claim was denied and her policy cancelled. Both Ms. Foutt and Mr. Garvey were earnest, credible witnesses. Ms. Foutt claims she told Mr. Garvey about her micro valve prolapse; he does not remember that she told him and feels that if she had, he would have either noted it or checked with the underwriter. At the hearing, Ms. Foutt insisted that she gave correct responses to all of the questions on the application, and that she is in "excellent health" as noted on the form and has "no problems". (transcript p. 14) It is impossible to find that one person or the other is untruthful; it is more likely that there was a misunderstanding by one person or another. Without evidence of the nature and seriousness of micro valve prolapse, it is impossible to weigh Ms. Foutt's claim of "no problems" or to assess how that response should have affected Mr. Garvey's completion of her application. No evidence was presented of prior misdeeds by Mr. Garvey. Two business owners for whose employees he has acted as agent for eight to ten years have never had any problems with Mr. Garvey's insurance representation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a final order dismissing the complaint against Respondent, Edward Aloysius Garvey. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9; however, Ms. Henry's testimony was equivocal as she says she "believes" she overheard the question and response. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Rejected as argument and unnecessary; while the first sentence is accurate, it is immaterial here since Petitioner failed to prove that the misrepresentation occurred. Respondent's Proposed Findings Respondent's proposed findings are substantially adopted here, except for paragraphs 5 through 7. While it was not clearly established that Ms. Foutt did not properly inform Mr. Garvey, it was not his burden to prove that she did not. If she did tell him of her condition, there was likely misunderstanding. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL 11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Dept. of Insurance & Treasurer 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 J. C. Murphy, Esquire 1901 S. Harbor City Blvd., Ste. 805 Melbourne, FL 32901
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of $1,256.09 for a COBRA premium payment made for the month of January 2011.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulate to the following facts set forth in this paragraph: Petitioner was employed by the State of Florida from June 19, 1995, through April 30, 2007, and again from November 7, 2007, through May 31, 2010; While a State of Florida employee, Petitioner participated in the Health Program. Employee Health Program premiums are paid a month in advance, so upon Petitioner's termination of employment on May 31, 2010, her Health Program coverage continued through June 30, 2010; Petitioner began "continuation coverage" on July 1, 2010; Continuation coverage is health insurance coverage that is identical to the coverage provided under the Health Program to active employees and must be offered to qualifying employees and dependents in accordance with the COBRA. COBRA is applicable to public employment through amendments to the Public Health Services Act. 42 U.S.C. § 300bb-1 (2010); Petitioner's COBRA premium payment for the month of January 2011 was received by the Department/Northgate Arinso on January 6, 2011; After February 2, 2011, Petitioner received a letter from United dated February 2, 2011; and Prior to receipt of the letter dated February 2, 2011, Petitioner had not requested cancellation of her COBRA coverage. The Department serves as statutory administrator for the Health Program. § 110.123(5). The company of Northgate Arinso, through contract with the Department, serves as the professional administrator of the Health Program. In the capacity of professional administrator, Northgate Arinso is responsible for overseeing most of the day-to-day operations associated with the Health Program. Northgate Arinso is one of the many companies that make up what is commonly referred to as People First. Pursuant to its contract with the Department, Northgate Arinso is responsible for, among other things, receiving and processing payments from insured individuals and making initial determinations regarding whether individuals are eligible for COBRA continuation coverage. The Department, however, makes all final decisions "concerning enrollment, the existence of coverage, or covered benefits" and is prohibited, by statute, from delegating such final authority to others. § 110.123(5). United has a contract with the Department to provide health insurance coverage for eligible State of Florida employees and individuals, like Petitioner, who are covered through COBRA. United is Petitioner's HMO. The contract between United and the Department provides, in relevant part, that "[b]y the tenth (10th) day of each calendar month of service, People First will forward monthly enrollment change data in an electronic media format. The data layout of the monthly HMO eligibility file structure will be provided by People First." United does not make final Health Program coverage eligibility determinations for employees, their dependents, or COBRA-covered individuals. Petitioner's COBRA premium payment for the month of January 2011 was due by December 10, 2010. Petitioner mailed her premium payment in the amount of $1,256.09 to People First on January 3, 2011. Included with Petitioner's payment was a note written by Petitioner stating "[p]lease reinstate policy coverage for January." Premium payments for direct bill participants, like Petitioner, are mailed to a lock-box, the contents of which are forwarded nightly to Northgate Arinso for processing. Upon receipt of a premium payment, Northgate Arinso verifies the amount of the payment and confirms that the participant continues to otherwise meet COBRA eligibility requirements. On the fifth day of each month, the People First system automatically checks to see if premium payments have been received and processed during the previous month. Petitioner's premium payment due for the month of January 2011 was not received by People First until January 6, 2011, so this payment would not have been captured by the system during the January 5, 2011, processing cycle. On the 27th or 28th day of each month, Northgate Arinso forwards to vendors, such as United, premium payments received from program participants. Because Petitioner's January premium was not received until January 6, 2011, no premium payments for January 2011 coverage would have been reflected on the December 27 or 28, 2010, transmittal, as appropriate, from Northgate Arinso to United. However, Petitioner's January 2011 premium payment should have been reflected on the January 27 or 28, 2011, transmittal from Northgate Arinso to United, but, for reasons unexplained, it was not. Northgate Arinso's failure to reflect Petitioner's January 6, 2011, premium payment on the January 27 or 28, 2011, transmittal to United resulted in United sending to Petitioner a certificate of creditable coverage. On February 2, 2011, United, after having received from Northgate Arinso information which indicated that Petitioner had not paid her January 2011 premium (when in fact she had), sent Petitioner a certificate of creditable coverage, which reads as follows: IMPORTANT TERMINATION OF COVERAGE NOTICE FOR: DONNA GOERNER, WILLIAM GOERNER PLEASE READ THIS CERTIFICATE OF CREDITABLE COVERAGE LETTER CAREFULLY AND SAVE IT FOR YOUR RECORDS. YOU WILL NEED THIS INFORMATION TO ENROLL IN ANOTHER BENEFIT PLAN. WE ARE WRITING TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YOUR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE WITH UNITEDHEALTHCARE HAS ENDED. THIS LETTER IS YOUR "CERTIFICATE OF CREDITABLE COVERAGE" THAT VERIFIES YOUR PRIOR COVERAGE WITH ONE OR MORE OF UNITEDHEALTHCARE AFFILIATED COMPANIES PROVIDING INSURANCE, HMO OR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS UNITEDHEALTHCARE). WHEN ENROLLING IN ANOTHER PLAN, YOU WILL NEED THIS CERTIFICATE TO SHOW YOU HAVE HAD CONTINUOUS COVERAGE. IF NEEDED, PROVIDE THIS LETTER AND/OR ANY OTHER UNITEDHEALTHCARE COVERAGE DOCUMENTS TO YOUR NEW PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OR EMPLOYER. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION MAY NOT BE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM UNITEDHEALTHCARE. IF YOUR NEW HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN REQUIRES INFORMATION THAT IS NOT CONTAINED IN THIS CERTIFICATE, YOU MAY PROVIDE THE INFORMATION IN WRITING TO YOUR NEW PLAN, ALONG WITH SUPPORTING COVERAGE DOCUMENTS OR BY OTHER MEANS. THE INFORMATION BELOW DESCRIBES THE COVERAGE AMOUNT AND THE DATE IT ENDED. AS REQUIRED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, BETTER KNOWN AS HIPAA, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL(S) PARTICIPATED IN A UNITEDHEALTHCARE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN: DONNA GOERNER--COVERAGE PERIOD END DATE-- 12/31/10 WILLIAM GOERNER--COVERAGE PERIOD END DATE-– 12/31/10 IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LETTER, OR BELIEVE ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS LETTER IS NOT ACCURATE, YOU MAY CONTACT THE BENEFIT REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR PREVIOUS EMPLOYER, CALL CUSTOMER CARE AT 1-866-527- 9597 OR AT THE NUMBER LISTED ON YOUR MEMBER ID CARD. THANK YOU. SINCERELY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE Upon receipt of the certificate of creditable coverage, Petitioner reasonably believed that her COBRA coverage had been cancelled effective December 31, 2010. The certificate of credible coverage is not a letter which determines participant eligibility, but instead provides the recipient thereof with information verifying dates of COBRA coverage. On February 7, 2011, Petitioner, upon receipt of the certificate of creditable coverage letter, contacted Northgate Arinso and requested reimbursement of her January 2011 premium payment. Petitioner's request was denied. For the month of January 2011 there were no claims submitted to the Department or Northgate Arinso by healthcare providers seeking payment for services provided to Petitioner or any of her beneficiaries. By signature affixed on July 1, 2010, Petitioner acknowledged receiving a benefits packet which contained "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT [HER] COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE RIGHTS." Among other things, the benefits packet noted the following: HOW LONG WILL CONTINUATION COVERAGE LAST? In the case of a loss of coverage due to end of employment, coverage may be continued for up to 18 months. Continuation coverage will be terminated before the end of the maximum period if any required premium is not paid on time, if a qualified beneficiary becomes covered under another group health plan that does not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion for a pre-existing condition of the qualified beneficiary, if a covered employee enrolls in Medicare, or if the employer ceases to provide any group health plan for its employees. Continuation coverage may also be terminated for any reason the Plan would terminate coverage of participant or beneficiary not receiving continuation coverage (such as fraud). * * * WHEN AND HOW MUST PAYMENT FOR CONTINUATION COVERAGE BE MADE Periodic payments for continuation coverage: After you make your first payment for continuation coverage, you will be required to pay for continuation coverage for each subsequent month of coverage. Under the Plan, these periodic payments for continuation coverage are due on the 10th day of the month prior to the coverage month. Grace periods for periodic payments: Although periodic payments are due on the 10th day of the month prior to the coverage month, you will be given a grace period of through the end of the coverage month to make each periodic payment. Your continuation coverage will be provided for each coverage period as long as payment for that coverage period is made before the end of the grace period for that payment. However, if you pay a periodic payment later than its due date but during its grace period, your coverage under the Plan may be suspended and then retroactively reinstated when the periodic payment is made. This means that any claim you submit for benefits while your coverage is suspended may be denied and may have to be resubmitted once your coverage is reinstated. If you fail to make a periodic payment before the end of the grace period for that payment, you will lose all rights to continuation coverage under the Plan. (Emphasis in original). On July 7, 2010, Petitioner, within days of commencing continuation coverage, received from the People First Service Center, Benefits Administration, correspondence which, in part, provides as follows: Your monthly insurance premium(s) are due by the 10th of the month prior to the month of coverage to avoid interruption of services. Premiums must be received or postmarked by the end of the coverage month to prevent termination. * * * State Group Health Insurance Program and Supplemental Insurance Plans Receipt of direct payment, endorsement, or deposit of premium by the Department or its agent does not provide coverage if after receipt of the payment, its endorsement, or deposit, the Department or its agent determines that the employee, retiree, or COBRA participant or dependent is not eligible to participate in the State Group Health Program or Supplemental Insurance Plan(s). Upon determination of ineligibility, including failure to make timely payments, the premium received shall be fully reimbursed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Donna M. Goerner's, request for reimbursement of her January 2011 COBRA premium payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's insurance agent licenses as, Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), and Health (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner was created in accordance with Section 20.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been conferred general power by the Legislature, to regulate the insurance industry in Florida, in accordance with Section 624.307, Florida Statutes. Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. Petitioner issued Respondent license No. A140590. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent has been licensed in Florida as agent for insurance in Life (2-16), and Life and Health (2-18). On December 2, 1992, Respondent had been issued a Health (2-40) license, but that license is no longer valid having been voluntarily cancelled. The cancellation occurred at a time previous to December 18, 2003, when a license history document was prepared, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. Respondent conducts business as an insurance agent under the name Business Insurance Cafeteria. The business is located at 828 Hamilton Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida. Respondent has been licensed as an insurance agent for over 50 years, 44 years of which have been in Florida. Acting as an insurance agent has been Respondent's principal occupation. During that time the emphasis in his business has been on health insurance. TRG Affiliation In April 2001, an acquaintance and insurance agent Ellen Averill introduced Respondent to Robert Trueblood, Sr. Respondent understood that Mr. Trueblood was the Managing General Agent for TRG. Mr. Trueblood, at the time, was from Hobe Sound, Florida. Mr. Trueblood gave information to Respondent about TRG pertaining to its involvement in the insurance business. Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that individuals within TRG were personal friends of Mr. Trueblood. In turn, Respondent made a call to Petitioner at the end of April or first part of May 2001. Someone that he spoke to, whose identity and position within the Petitioner's hierarchy was not established in the record, made a comment which cannot be established as fact given its hearsay nature. Nonetheless, following this conversation, Respondent became affiliated with the TRG organization which Respondent understood to be an ERISA program, not subject to Petitioner's oversight. At that time, Respondent's knowledge of what an ERISA program entailed was based upon reading he had done in the past. Respondent was of the impression that the ERISA program was under the auspices of the federal government, as opposed to the state government. Respondent had never taken specific courses concerning the ERISA program before his engagement with TRG. Respondent's involvement with TRG was his first effort to market what he considered to be ERISA program insurance. When Respondent commenced his participation with TRG, he believed that an ERISA program was instituted by a document filed with the Department of Labor outlining insurance benefits and that TRG had put up reserves associated with the ERISA program. Respondent did not obtain anything in writing from the Department of Labor concerning TRG as an ERISA program. To begin with, Respondent believed that ERISAs had to involve 51 or more lives in being before coverage could be obtained. Again, this was not a market that Respondent had worked in but he understood that ERISAs involved coverage of that number of individuals. From conversations with Mr. Trueblood and Tom Dougherty, another managing General Agent for TRG, of Cocoa Beach, Florida, Respondent became persuaded that ERISAs could be marketed to companies with a single life being insured or two to three lives in a small group market. Respondent relied on Mr. Trueblood when Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that ERISA, as a federal program did not have to be licensed by the state. Mr. Dougherty made a similar comment to Respondent. Ms. Averill also commented to Respondent concerning her impression about TRG as an ERISA program. From this record, Respondent was not officially told by persons within the Petitioner's agency, that the TRG program was an ERISA program that did not have to be licensed in Florida. TRG provided Respondent marketing material. Respondent was impressed with the "very professional" appearance of that material. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 admitted into evidence is constituted of material provided to Respondent by TRG. It refers to the TRG health plan under "the Redwood Group." It refers to marketing under an organization identified as Premier Financial Group USA, Inc. It describes PPO networks available with the TRG products. The document refers to the TRG/USA health plan (the Redwood Group, L.L.C./USA Services Group, Inc.) and various versions of employer health and welfare benefit plans and a client fee schedule effective May 1, 2001, for enrollees in the 80/60 plan and 90/70 plan. Participant co- pays for physician office visits are related. Those plans identified in the material describe the amount of deductibles according to age groups and participation by members and additional family participants. The TRG document speaks of benefits attributable to the 80/60 and 90/70 health plans. This information contained comments about the Redwood Companies- Corporate Overview. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 comments upon the ERISA program and the provision of health benefits for employees through self-funded employee health and welfare benefit plans as a means, according to the document, to exempt those plans from state insurance regulation. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 touts what it claims are savings to be derived compared to current health insurance plans held by prospective purchasers. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an associate application agreement setting forth policies and procedures that Respondent would be obligated to meet as an associate with TRG acting as an independent contractor. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an application format for prospective enrollees in the TRG preferred provider plans to execute in applying for coverage. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 refers to Robert W. Trueblood, Sr., as being affiliated with Premier Financial Group, USA Inc., under the TRG banner. Mr. Trueblood sent Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 to Respondent. Respondent began his contacts with TRG in May 2001 and wrote his first enrollment contract in association with TRG in August or September 2001. Beyond that time, Respondent was notified on November 27, 2001, that effective November 30, 2001, a cease and desist order had been issued against TRG's offering its health coverage in Florida. The commissions earned by Respondent in selling the TRG health insurance product ranged from five to seven percent. Respondent earned less than $1,000.00 in total commissions when selling TRG health insurance products. The persons who participated with TRG in its preferred provider plan were referred to the claims administrator of USA Services. Participants in the TRG preferred provider plan sold by Respondent received information outlining the benefits. Participants received medical I.D. cards. This information was provided directly to the participants. Respondent was aware of the information provided to the participants. An example of this information is set out in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2. In offering the TRG health coverage, Respondent told his customers that this plan was not under the purview of the Department of Insurance in Florida, that this was an ERISA program. Respondent told his customers that any problems experienced with the program could be addressed through resort to the federal court. Respondent did remind the customers that making the Florida Department of Insurance aware of their claims could create a record in case they went to federal court. Respondent is familiar with the prohibition against acting as an insurance agent for companies not authorized to transact business in Florida. But he held to the opinion that TRG was an ERISA program under the federal auspices and not subject to Petitioner's control. At the inception, Respondent believed that offering the TRG health insurance coverage would be an acceptable choice. That proved not to be true. When it was discovered that TRG would not pay claims related to health coverage for policies Respondent sold to his customers, Respondent made an attempt to find replacement coverage. To this end, Respondent had received information reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 5. The document discussed the prospect that insurance would be provided from the Clarendon Insurance Company (Clarendon), using the provider Network Beechstreet, with Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance Brokers in Plantation, Florida, being involved in the process to substitute coverage for TRG. Baftal is the shorthand reference for Bertany Association for Travel and Leisure, Inc. Baftal is an insurance agency. Respondent made some explanation to his customers insured through TRG of the prospect of using Clarendon to take over from TRG, which had not honored any of the claims for reimbursement made by Respondent's customers. A copy of this December 28, 2001, correspondence from Respondent to TRG's insureds who had been sold policies through Respondent, is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. As described in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 7, Baftal sent information concerning health care coverage to business owners, to include Respondent's customers, as described in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This correspondence indicated that the benefit plan would become effective December 1, 2001, upon condition that the insured meet applicable underwriting standards. This communication was made following receipt of premiums paid by the insured. Reimbursement for claims were to be processed through Advancement Administration in Maitland, Florida. Baftal did not assume the claims that had not been honored by TRG, and Clarendon did not become the insurer for those customers. Baftal did not follow through with the offer to provide health benefits to Respondent's customers who had begun with TRG. On February 11, 2002, as evidenced by Respondent's Exhibit numbered 8, Baftal wrote the customers to advise that health benefits would not be provided. That exhibit mentions American Benefit Plans through a Mr. David Neal and some intention for Mr. Neal's organization to provide a benefits program, including insurance through Clarendon, as administered through Advanced Administration. The Baftal communication goes on to say that Baftal had learned that Clarendon was not an insurer on the program, that the only insurer on the program was an offshore insurance company about which Baftal had not received credible information. The letter remarks that premiums paid to Baftal by the customers were being returned. On April 4, 2002, as related in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 9, TRG wrote to persons who were identified as health plan participants, to include Respondent's customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The letter stated that due to a problem with USA Services Group, the claims administrator on November 30, 2001, when the TRG plan ended, claims were not being paid. The correspondence remarks about difficulties with USA Services experienced by TRG, promising that TRG would fulfill obligations to the customers who were participants in the health plan. Contrary to this promise, TRG has not honored claims for those customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. On December 12, 2001, as reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4, Petitioner had written consumers who had enrolled in the TRG health plan to advise that the Petitioner did not consider the TRG health plan to be an ERISA program. Under the circumstances, the correspondence indicated that TRG should have sought authorization from Petitioner to sell health plans in Florida, which had not been done. The correspondence refers to some acknowledgement by TRG that it was not an ERISA program and needed to be licensed in Florida to conduct business. The correspondence advises the consumer to cease payment of any further premiums to TRG, to include the cancellation of automatic bank drafts for payment of premiums. The correspondence advises the consumer to obtain replacement insurance through Florida licensed insurance companies or HMOs. The letter goes on to remind the consumer of certain plans that were not licensed in Florida to conduct business because they were perceived to be illegitimate companies. The communication urged the consumer not to enroll in those health insurance plans. Respondent was made aware of this communication. Count I: Vicki Brown Vicki Brown has a business known as Rainbows End Ranch located in St. Johns County, Florida. This is a one-person business involving boarding and training of horses. Ms. Brown was interested in obtaining permanent health insurance, in that her COBRA policy was expiring. As a consequence, she was referred to Respondent by a friend. Respondent met Ms. Brown at her place of business. She explained to him her health insurance needs. Respondent suggested obtaining health insurance through TRG. Ms. Brown agreed. Ms. Brown paid $165.00 to TRG by check to cover the premium for September 2001. Two additional amounts of $165.00 were withdrawn from her checking account to pay premiums to TRG for the months that followed. Subsequently, Ms. Brown received Petitioner's December 12, 2001, letter informing her that TRG was not allowed to conduct business in Florida, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered Beyond that point, Ms. Brown had difficulties in her attempt to be reimbursed for her medical treatment, presumably covered by the TRG plan, by seeking reimbursement through another insurance firm other than by TRG. That process was pursued through Baftal in relation to insurance offered by Clarendon. Ms. Brown made Respondent aware that she had problems with reimbursement and of the receipt of Petitioner's letter. Respondent told her not to worry about the situation, that things were going to be taken care of by Clarendon taking over where TRG left off. Ms. Brown received Respondent's form correspondence dated December 28, 2001, explaining the switch from TRG to Clarendon, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. Ms. Brown also received information from Advancement Administration concerning Clarendon as the insurance company, Beechstreet as the provider network, mentioning Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance as brokers, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. Following her difficulties with TRG, on January 2, 2002, Ms. Brown wrote a check to the Baftal Escrow Account in the amount of $513.40 for premiums in relation to Clarendon. As can be seen, the payment to Clarendon represented an increase in premium compared to TRG. The check for $513.40 had been written out to LPI Clarendon and changed by Respondent to reflect the Baftal Escrow Account. In January 2002, Ms. Brown called Respondent and was told that the paperwork he was filling out was wrong and that he needed to complete new forms for Baftal "Insurance Brokers." According to Respondent, that explained why the coverage through Baftal had not gone into effect. Ms. Brown had received Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, the communication from Baftal calling for additional information as a prerequisite to obtaining insurance benefits effective December 1, 2001. Information provided in the document concerning issues related to her coverage was not useful to Ms. Brown when she made inquiry consistent with the instructions contained in the document. Concerning her claims for reimbursement, Ms. Brown had a health problem with her throat. In addressing the condition, she was told by her primary care doctor, that when trying to arrange for a specialist to attend her care through the Beechstreet Provider Network, which was part of the health care offered through the Baftal Agency, it was reported that Beechstreet was bankrupt. Then Ms. Brown called Respondent to ask his advice. Respondent told her he was not sure how to respond "right now things are in a haywire." Beyond that point Ms. Brown found out that Clarendon, part of the Baftal arrangement was not going to insure her business. In particular, Ms. Brown received the February 11, 2002, communication from Baftal commenting that insurance would not be provided through Baftal, remarking that Clarendon was not an insurer. This communication is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 12. After the TRG and Baftal experiences, Ms. Brown tried to be placed on her husband's health insurance policy but had trouble getting a certificate to allow her to obtain that coverage. This was in relation to the need for the existence of continuing coverage before being placed on the husband's policy. Fortunately, Ms. Brown was eventually able to get insurance through her husband's policy. Ms. Brown was dismayed by the difficulty experienced in obtaining health insurance when she discovered that TRG and Baftal would not meet her health insurance needs. From the evidence, it has been determined that the TRG plan purchased by Ms. Brown was the 80/60 plan with the $1,000.00 deductible. Although Ms. Brown testified that her medical bills in the period in question would total close to $1,000.00, the evidence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8, constituted of medical bills around that time do not approximate than amount. Ms. Brown had received a TRG benefit handbook and membership card, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 9 and 10, associated with her participation in the 80/60 plan with a $1000.00 deductible and co-pay of $10.00 for a physician office visit and $20.00 for a specialist office visit. In summary, none of the companies from whom Ms. Brown purchased insurance through Respondent, commencing with TRG, have paid for any of her claims for reimbursement for medical care during the relevant time period. In addition to not receiving a reimbursement for premiums paid to TRG, Ms. Brown did not receive the return of her premium paid to Baftal either. Count II: Alicia Moore Alicia Moore at one time was employed by Respondent. The position Alicia Moore held with Respondent's insurance agency was that of general office clerk. Ms. Moore has never been licensed in any capacity by Petitioner, related to the sale of insurance and has not taken courses to educate herself about the insurance business. In addition to her employment with Respondent, she purchased health insurance through Respondent with TRG around September 2001. Ms. Moore purchased the TRG health insurance policy in the interest of her husband's subchapter S corporation, small business. Her husband's name is Randy Moore. The name of the company operated by the husband is M-3 Enterprises, Inc. The husband's company has one employee, Randy Moore. The Moores resided in St. Augustine, Florida, at times relevant to the inquiry. The husband's business had been insured for health coverage by Humana, until Humana determined that it was not willing to provide health insurance for the company and the Moores decided that the individual policies offered by Humana in substitution for the group policy were too expensive. The Moores chose TRG for health insurance after Respondent had discussed several health insurance plans including individual or group policies. The reason for the choice was the premium price. On September 19, 2001, Randy Moore paid $434.00 for the health insurance premium to Redwood Group, in the interest of obtaining health insurance from TRG. On November 2, 2001, an additional $434.00 was debited from the checking account for M-3 Enterprises, to TRG for premiums related to the health insurance coverage. Ms. Moore recalls Respondent telling her that the TRG health plan was an ERISA plan but she has no knowledge about ERISA plans being regulated under federal law. In that connection, Ms. Moore commented in a statement given by affidavit, that Respondent told her that TRG was not regulated by Petitioner. Respondent explained to Ms. Moore that the premium payments to TRG were lower in costs because TRG was an ERISA program. TRG sent correspondence to the Moores as participants in the health plan. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 15. It enclosed a membership issued to Randy Moore setting forth the $10.00 co-pay for a physician visit, $20.00 co-pay for a specialist office visit, and $50.00 co-pay for emergency room visits associated with the participation in Plan 8033. The nature of the plan that the Moores had was a member- plus family. The cover letter listed the telephone number for the claims administrator USA Services to address claims or customer services questions. Ms. Moore also received a packet from TRG explaining the process of filing claims for health care. After obtaining the TRG health coverage, Ms. Moore and her son received treatment for medical conditions contemplated under the terms in the TRG plan. Notwithstanding the submission of information for reimbursement related to the charges, the charges were not paid under the TRG plan. The total of these claims was approximately $727.00. That $727.00 was less co- payments already made for the medical services. Ms. Moore made the Respondent aware that TRG was not reimbursing her for medical bills. Respondent gave Ms. Moore the telephone number for Tom Dougherty, Managing General Agent for TRG, expecting Mr. Dougherty to be able to assist Ms. Moore in dealing with outstanding medical bills. Ms. Moore called Mr. Dougherty several times, but this did not lead to the payment of the medical bills. Ms. Moore also sent TRG a certified letter in August 2002 concerning bills outstanding since October 2001, attaching the bills and information concerning payment of premiums for the coverage. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 18. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 21 is a compilation of information concerning the outstanding medical bills, and a statement from Medical Accounts Services, Inc. (Medical Accounts) concerning a current balance on June 17, 2002, of $229.00. The Moores had to make an arrangement to repay the money which was being collected through Medical Accounts. It is not clear from the record the exact nature of the member with family plan that had been purchased by the Moores. Consequently, the deductible in force when claims were submitted for reimbursement is not readily apparent. Ms. Moore in her testimony was unable to recall the amount of the deductible for the policy issued from TRG. It does appear from a review of the fee schedule associated with the 80/60 plan and the 90/70 plan offered by TRG, that the premium payments made did not entitle the Moores to coverage associated with a $500.00 deductible or $250.00 deductible. The other possible amount for the deductible, by process of elimination is $1,000.00. The Moores received correspondence dated November 28, 2001, sent to Randy Moore as a TRG enrollee, indicating that the coverage would end effective November 30, 2001, and reminding Mr. Moore that, according to the correspondence, he would have to find other health coverage as of December 1, 2001. This correspondence, as with other similar correspondence that has been discussed, promised to continue to process claims for covered services incurred before the coverage ended. The TRG letter terminating coverage for the Moores was received by the Moores five days after the date upon which the correspondence indicated that the coverage would no longer be in effect. This circumstance was very disquieting to Ms. Moore. The claims by Ms. Moore and her child were within the covered period for the TRG policy as to their dates. The letter received from TRG is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17. Ms. Moore spoke to Respondent about obtaining coverage when TRG discontinued its coverage. Respondent suggested that the Moores affiliate with Baftal. The Moores made a premium payment to Baftal but within a week of being accepted for coverage, Baftal wrote to advise that coverage had been declined. Beyond that time, the Moores obtained coverage from Medical Savings Insurance, a company that they still use for health insurance. Concerning Baftal, by correspondence dated February 11, 2002, Baftal wrote the Moores as a member, the form letter that has already been described, in which the Moores were told that they would not be provided health benefits. Given the problem described with Clarendon Insurance Company, the letter noted the return of the premium paid for coverage through Baftal. A copy of the letter sent to the Moores is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 19. Baftal did not reimburse the Moores for the outstanding claims totaling approximately $727.00. Count III: Bruce Chambers Bruce Chambers was another customer who bought TRG health insurance from Respondent. Mr. Chambers was a Florida resident at the time he purchased the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers and his wife moved to Florida from Georgia earlier in 2001. When they moved, the prior health insurance coverage that the Chambers held carried a high premium given Ms. Chambers diabetic condition. Moving from one state to the next also increased that premium. Under the circumstances, the Chambers agreed to purchase the TRG Health Plan. At one time related to the transaction promoted by Respondent, Mr. Chambers believed that TRG was licensed in Florida. He held this belief even in the instance where Respondent had commented that TRG was an ERISA program. Mr. Chambers also executed a coverage disclaimer in November 2001, upon a form from Respondent's agency noting that the health, welfare program applied for was not under the auspices of the Florida Department of Insurance. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 36. After purchasing the TRG policy, the wife developed an illness, and costs were incurred for services by the family's personal physician and for hospitalization. In addition Mr. Chambers had medical expenses. Exclusive of co-pays and the deductibles that are applicable, Mr. Chambers paid $7,478.46 for the health care he and his wife received. None of that amount has been reimbursed through TRG as expected under the terms of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 a month, plus $18.00 in other fees, for two months related to coverage effective October 1, 2001, extending into November 2001, a total of $1,010.00 in premiums and fees paid to TRG. No premiums and fees paid to TRG have been reimbursed. The amount of premium paid by Mr. Chambers corresponds under the client fee schedule in effect May 1, 2001, associated with the TRG Health Plan, as pertaining to an 80/60 plan for a member and family with a $1,000.00 deductible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 26 is constituted of the calculation of the expenses, $7,478.46 and attaches billing information, some of which is for services and care received prior to December 1, 2001, and some of which is for services and care beyond that date. When Mr. Chambers discovered that TRG was not reimbursing the costs which it was obligated to pay for health care received by the Chambers, he contacted the Respondent and TRG to gain satisfaction. He also contacted Petitioner. When Mr. Chambers enrolled in the TRG plan he received the transmittal letter enclosing his benefits card, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 23. The membership card identified his participation in plan 8033, with a co-pay for physician office visits of $10.00, specialty office visits of $20.00, and emergency room visits of $50.00. Mr. Chambers received notice from the Petitioner, presumably the December 12, 2001, notification concerning the lack of authority for TRG to business in Florida and the advice that CHEA (Consumer Health Education Association) was not authorized to do business in Florida either. On December 20, 2001, the Chambers wrote Respondent concerning the unavailability of insurance through TRG and CHEA. The Chambers asked Respondent to give them advice about a list of "small group market carriers" they understood to offer health plans. This letter to Respondent is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25. Also, within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 was a copy of the letter from Respondent to TRG insureds dated December 28, 2001, which made mention of Clarendon as an alternative to TRG. Within that same exhibit is correspondence dated January 21, 2002, from the Respondent to enrollees in the TRG plan, to include the Chambers, discussing Baftal and the prospect that the latter company might honor TRG claims. Finally, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 contains an August 21, 2002, letter from Mr. Chambers to TRG asking TRG to pay for its portion of the medical expenses as reimbursement. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 27 is the December 1, 2001, application by Mr. Chambers to obtain medical benefits through CHEA. The application also refers to EOS Health Services. This predates Petitioner's warning about CHEA and EOS being licensed to do business in Florida. On December 1, 2001, Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 for premium payments to EOS Health Services and provided a voided check for future payments for premiums by automatic withdrawal from his account. This effort was made as a follow on to obtain health coverage when TRG no longer provided health insurance to the Chambers. To obtain health coverage, Mr. Chambers paid $1,465.88 to the Baftal Escrow Account. This payment was made by a check dated January 14, 2002. That money was refunded by Baftal on January 12, 2002, and no coverage was offered through that company for health insurance. Mr. Chambers had been provided information about the opportunity to obtain insurance from Baftal as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 31. Respondent had also suggested that Mr. Chambers apply for health insurance from American Benefit Plan, following the discontinuance of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers applied for that coverage by documents dated February 18, 2002, in the interest of his company, Bruce A. Cambers, CFP. Information concerning that application is found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 32. American Benefit Plans was listed by Petitioner as an entity not allowed to conduct business in Florida in the December 12, 2001, letter of advice to insurance consumers following the problem with TRG. Mr. Chambers wrote two checks, one in the amount of $628.60 to Independent Managers Association and one for $799.68 to the Association of Independent Managers, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 35 and 33 respectively. The two checks were written on February 18, 2002. Those checks were voided in relation to payment for monthly insurance premiums and association dues. The effect was to not accept those checks for premium payments to obtain health insurance. On March 5, 2002, ACH Corporation of America wrote Mr. Chambers stating that because of incorrect procedures, or untimely submission, health coverage would not be extended, pertaining to an application for Ultra Med Choice EPO. Ultra Med was another health insurance business which Petitioner in its December 12, 2001, correspondence to health care consumers had been identified as unlicensed to conduct health insurance business in Florida. The letter declining coverage from ACH and application information for a policy sought to become effective December 1, 2001, is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered This application was in relation to Bruce Chambers, CFP as employer. Mr. Chambers remains out of pocket for payments he had to make for health care extended, principally to his wife, for which TRG was obligated to provide reimbursement in part. None of the other policies that Mr. Chambers attempted to obtain worked out to substitute for the TRG obligation for reimbursement for health care claims. Eventually the Chambers were able to obtain health insurance. At present the Chambers have a two-man group policy through Mr. Chambers' business to provide health coverage. Because of the problem with health insurance coverage, Ms. Chambers was required to return to work. Her employment was outside Mr. Chambers' company, as well as within his company. As a result of Ms. Chambers' failure to make payments to Flagler Hospital, where Ms. Chambers had received care, under terms that should have involved TRG providing reimbursement for costs, the bills were turned over to a collection agency compromising the credit standing of the Chambers. For the most part, the credit problems have been resolved. Due Diligence As established by testimony from Linda Davis, Analyst II in Petitioner's Jacksonville Office, there is a means to determine whether an insurance company has the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida. This is accomplished by resort to the electronic data base maintained by Petitioner. A certificate of authority is an indication that the insurance company has completed the necessary requirements to be licensed or authorized to sell insurance in Florida. As established through Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 39, TRG/USA Health Plans, TRG Marketing L.L.C. was not authorized to do business in Florida. An insurance agent licensed in Florida, to include the time frame envisioned by the Amended Administrative Complaint, would have had access to the data base identifying whether an insurance company had the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida and could properly have been expected to seek this information before engaging in the sale of products from a company such as TRG. Rather than avail himself of that opportunity, Respondent made some form of inquiry to Petitioner on the subject of TRG, while apparently ignoring the more fundamental consideration of whether TRG had been granted a certificate of authority to conduct its business in Florida, which should have been pursued. Ascertaining the existence or nonexistence of a certificate of authority, constitutes "due diligence" incumbent upon an agent before engaging in the sale of insurance from a prospective insurance company. Respondent's Disciplinary History Petitioner has not taken disciplinary action against Respondent before this case.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 624.11, 626.611(7) and (8), 626.621(2) and (6), 626.901(1), Florida Statutes (2001); suspending his licenses for nine months; placing Respondent on two-years probation; and requiring attendance at such continuing education classes as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 2nd day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph O. Stroud, Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to reimbursement under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan for $300.00 she spent for chiropractic treatment between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is and has been an employee of the State of Florida for a number of years. In February of 1974, she subscribed to the general group health insurance plan offered by the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under contract no. 264158282. Blue Cross of Florida Inc. and Blue Shield of Florida Inc. are the designated claims agent/administrator for the general plan and its options/addenda. Petitioner was first treated by Dr. Steven M. Willis, D.C., in January, 1983. She did not initially present to Dr. Willis, a chiropractor, for trauma but for symptoms of chronic sciatica and leg pain. She was treated the remainder of that month for sciatica but did not subscribe to the state group health plan until February 1, 1983. Although her application for chiropractic coverage was not offered or admitted in evidence, Petitioner testified that she answered all questions thereon and Respondent did not affirmatively raise any issues of lack of coverage due to effective date of coverage, or due to addendum changes, or due to concealment or due to fraud and on the basis of Petitioner's exhibits as a whole, I find that she acquired chiropractic coverage during a period of open enrollment and that from February 1, 1983 on, the plan took her as it found her and provided complete chiropractic coverage. In dispute in this cause are a series of chiropractic treatments and charges incurred by the Petitioner with Dr. Willis. Claims for the following dates of treatment were made in the name of a health care provider, Robert G. Hildreth, D.C." Dr. Hildreth made the formal claims upon Petitioner's assignment to the Centerville Road Chiropractic Clinic in which both chiropractors are partners. There is no dispute that the following treatments were rendered by Dr. Willis and properly assigned for payment by Petitioner: 11/16/83 - $20.00 12/21/03 - $6.44 11/22/83 - $20.00 12/29/83 - $20.00 11/28/83 - $20.00 01/03/84 - $20.00 12/05/83 - $20.00 01/06/84 - $20.00 12/09/83 - $20.00 01/13/84 - $20.00 12/14/83 - $20.00 01/17/84 - $20.00 12/19/83 - $20.00 01/19/84 - $20.00 12/21/83 - $20.00 01/23/84 - $20.00 Claims for some or all of these treatments/amounts were submitted by the chiropractors a number of times and rejected by Blue Cross/Blue Shield as the state administrator a number of times. Petitioner conceded at hearing that the 12/21/83 charge in the amount of $6.44 was properly rejected for lack of coverage of supplies costs. The first rejection of some of the other charges was for failure of the doctors' bookkeeper to include the correct diagnosis and procedure codes on the claims forms. This was corrected and resubmitted and thereafter all of the charges for treatment were rejected (either together or piecemeal) for payment upon grounds that 26 visits had already been paid for and that after the maximum number of 26 visits has been paid the state plan pays for no more chiropractic visits. Blue Cross/Blue Shield resumed paying for chiropractic treatment for the chronic back and leg problems on 1/27/84. In light of Blue Cross/Blue Shield's earlier response, Petitioner and Dr. Willis concluded that this must be because a new year was beginning and a new 26 visits would be paid annually. However, Respondent stipulated at hearing, that although private Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance plans may have such a maximum, the state plan has no such 26 visits annual maximum. Petitioner and Dr. Willis questioned Blue Cross/Blue Shield about its 26 visit annual maximum reason for rejection, so Blue Cross/Blue Shield sent a "review sheet" asking Dr. Willis to justify his diagnosis and treatment. His justification was supplied on the review sheet (R-1) dated February 27, 1984. After review, Blue Cross/Blue Shield advised Petitioner and Dr. Willis that payment for these treatments had been determined not to be "medically necessary" by its chiropractic board of review. Petitioner responded with a timely request for Section 120.57(1) hearing. Petitioner eventually paid for the treatments in question out of her own pocket. In support of her position that her treatments (all of which may be generically described as "spine adjustments") are "medically necessary, Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Willis, the treating chiropractor. In addition to relating facts, I find Dr. Willis by education, training, and experience is capable of giving expert opinions in the field of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Willis testified that he first saw Petitioner on 1/12/83 for sciatic pain in both legs. After taking a complete history revealing previous orthopedic treatment locally with Dr. Haney and previous podiatric treatment locally with Dr. Merritt, treatment with another doctor in Orlando and with another podiatrist in Texas, Dr. Willis initially diagnosed acute lumbosacral neuralgia and treated Petitioner 3 times per week for 6 weeks. He opined that Petitioner's case was unusual in that Petitioner wanted to remain as athletically active as possible, including but not limited to running 10-50 miles per week and participating in a number of sports. Dr. Willis subsequently revised his diagnosis to make it bilateral sacrilization at the L-5/S-1 vertebrae, anterior gravitational syndrome and hyperimbrication at the L4/L5 vertebrae. Put into laymen's terms, Petitioner's L-4 / L-5 vertebrae do not have full range of motion and this results in Petitioner's low back pain at that level. In Dr. Willis' opinion, due to a congenital abnormality, in Petitioner, her condition is not fully correctable. On 4/5/83, Petitioner came to Dr. Willis with back pain which he diagnosed as the result of a trauma occurring as a result of weight lifting Petitioner had done on 4/4/83, and subsequently she suffered a trauma to the unstable back while windsurfing. On 10/28/83, Petitioner reported pain in the medial aspect of her left foot which Dr. Willis diagnosed as tendonitis. In January, 1984 he referred her to Dr. Merritt, a local podiatrist for a severe left shin/ankle/ metatarsal problem. These various diagnoses, treatments, and referrals, are important to the instant issue involving spine adjustment treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 for chronic back pain at L-4 through S- 1 because they serve to illustrate diagnosis and treatment differences between trauma situations and continuing treatment for exacerbations of the chronic back and foot/leg problems for which cost of treatment reimbursement is sought. "Apparently, however, there was no problem with payment of any fees charged until 11/16/83 (the twenty-seventh visit in 1983), and clearly payments resumed as soon as the calendar rolled over to 1984. Dr. Willis further diagnosed concluded that there is pedal instability of Petitioner's foot resulting in ankle and shin problems and that these problems in turn create an imbalance; the imbalance in turn causes great wear and tear in the lumbar (low back) region. The low back is again exacerbated by increased periods of activity. During these periods of exacerbation he treats Petitioner's chronic back pain with spine adjustments. There may be long periods between exacerbations when treatments are not necessary. It is for the periods of exacerbation that the treatments in question were administered and for which Petitioner seeks reimbursement. Although Dr. Willis conceded on cross-examination that frequency of treatment in a case like Petitioner's is a matter of chiropractic judgment and also that opinions among health care providers and especially chiropractors may differ as to whether the treatments he has provided to Petitioner are medically necessary or not, he states emphatically that in his professional opinion they are medically necessary. Upon consideration of all the testimony and evidence, I find the treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 to be remedial as opposed to merely palliative in nature due to the considerable instability of both the back and foot which continued to be exacerbated by Petitioner's particular lifestyle. Both Petitioner and her doctor testified that chiropractic treatment sessions in her case have always included preventive counselling as well as therapeutic treatment. The goal of such counselling is to substitute non-exacerbating or less-exacerbating recreational activities for those Petitioner would otherwise pursue (i.e. weight training and swimming in place of running and wind surfing).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding Petitioner's treatments in question "medically necessary and ordering the plan administrator (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to reimburse her $300.00 therefor (amount claimed less the admittedly "not covered" $6.44 supplies charge on 12/21/83.). DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dara Houliston 2308 Notley Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Patricia A. Wotring, is an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. At all times relevant hereto she was enrolled as a member of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (Plan). The State of Florida is a self-insurer. It has contracted with Blue Cross - Blue Shield to act as its administrator in processing and paying all claims by employees under the Plan. Claims are suppose to be paid-in accordance with coverage requirements, limitations and exclusions that have been adopted by the State. These requirements are set forth in the Employees Group Health Self Insurance Booklet (Booklet) which has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 1. Between November, 1982 and January, 1983 petitioner submitted five claims for benefits with Blue Cross - Blue Shield. The claims totaled $633, of which $620 were for mental health services provided by a Tallahassee clinical psychologist and $13 for laboratory services performed by a Tallahassee physician. Although Blue Cross - Blue Shield had been "instructed" to not pay this type of claim, the claims were nonetheless honored in early 1983 and Wotring received checks at that time for $633. Upon advice from respondent, Department of Administration, Blue Cross - Blue Shield requested reimbursement from petitioner in June, 1983 for $633. That request prompted the instant proceeding. As a basis for claiming reimbursement, Blue Cross - Blue Shield relied upon Section H of the Exclusions portion of the Booklet. That section reads as follows: No payment shall be made under the Plan for the following: H. Services, care, treatment, and supplies furnished by a person who ordinarily resides in the Insured's home or by any person or institution not otherwise defined in the Definitions section of this booklet. (Emphasis Added) It then referred to page 39 of the Booklet which defines a "physician" as follows: "Physician" shall mean the following: a doctor of medicine (M.D.), doctor of osteopathy (D.O.), doctor of surgical chiropody (D.S.C.) or doctor of podiatric medicine (D.P.M.), who is legally qualified and licensed to practice medicine and perform surgery at the time and place the service is rendered; a licensed chiropractor acting within the scope of his/her license, provided the insured receiving his/her services is covered under the chiropractic coverage option of the Plan and the proper premium has been paid; a licensed dentist who performs specific surgical procedures covered by the Plan, or who renders services due to injuries resulting from Accidents, provided such procedures or services are within the scope of the dentist's professional license; a licensed optometrist who performs procedures covered by the Plan provided such procedures are within the scope of the optometrist's professional license. A clinical psychologist is not defined within the Definitions section of the Plan. Because a clinical psychologist does not fall within the definition of a physician, and is not otherwise defined within that section, the services received by Wotring were properly excluded from coverage by the Plan. Effective October 1, 1983, the Legislature amended the law to require that services rendered by a clinical psychologist be covered by the Plan. In the event payments are made in error, the Department's policy is to instruct its Administrator (Blue Cross - Blue Shield) to request reimbursement from the insured. Petitioner acknowledged that the five claims were paid in error. However, she contended that the claims were submitted in good faith over a period of time and were honored. Accordingly, she argues it is wrong to now require her to repay those amounts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner repay respondent $613 for payments previously received in error that are not covered by the Plan. It is further RECOMMENDED that in view of the size of the amount owed, petitioner be allowed to repay that amount on an installment basis over a six-month period, if she so chooses. It is further RECOMMENDED that she not be required to repay $20 to respondent if all deductibles for the appropriate calendar year have been met. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Wotring 1833 Mayfair Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Room 435, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
