The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive Health Insurance Subsidy payments retroactive to July 1995, the month she began to receive retirement benefits from the Respondent as the surviving spouse of a member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida retirement and pension systems. Section 121.025, Florida Statutes (1995). The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, also responsible for administering the Retiree Health Insurance Subsidy. Section 112.363(7), Florida Statutes (1995). Harold Mosser, the former husband of Mrs. Kirkley, retired from his job as a school principal in August 1979, and he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Mosser received a monthly state retirement benefit, and, as a supplement to the retirement benefit, he received a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley retired from her job as a schoolteacher in 1989, and she is a member of the Florida Retirement System. Since her retirement, Mrs. Kirkley has received a monthly state retirement benefit and a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mr. Mosser died on April 28, 1995. Mrs. Kirkley did not advise the Division of Mr. Mosser's death. Rather, the Division learned of his death in July 1995, when conducting a routine check of the Bureau of Vital Statistics "death tape." As Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse and the person he named as his joint annuitant, Mrs. Kirkley was entitled to receive an "Option 3" monthly retirement benefit for the remainder of her lifetime, pursuant to Section 121.09, Florida Statutes (1995). Mrs. Kirkley was also eligible to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy upon filing an application for the subsidy with the Division, and this benefit included payment of the subsidy from the date of Mr. Mosser's death or for the six months prior to the date the application was filed.1 In a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments dated 1/31/95, the components of Mr. Mossers's monthly retirement benefit payments were identified. At the time of his death, Mr. Mosser received a gross monthly retirement benefit of $1,730.60, plus a Health Insurance Subsidy of $90.00, minus $250.00 withholding tax, for total net monthly benefits of $1,570.60. Because the Division did not learn of Mr. Mosser's death until July 1995, his monthly benefit check was issued in May and June 1995 and electronically deposited in NationsBank. When the Division learned of Mr. Mosser's death, a Division representative tried to reach Mrs. Kirkley by telephone but could not obtain her unlisted telephone number. The representative then sent Mrs. Kirkley a letter dated July 20, 1995, in which the representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that Mr. Mosser's estate was entitled to receive his benefits for the month of April 1995 in the net amount of $1,570.60 and that she must apply for a continuing monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's designated beneficiary. The representative also advised Mrs. Kirkley to complete the Division Form FST-11b that was enclosed with the letter and to return it to the Division together with Mr. Mosser's death certificate. Mrs. Kirkley completed the form enclosed with the letter and mailed it to the Division as directed. The Division changed Mr. Mosser's account over to Mrs. Kirkley, and she began receiving a monthly retirement benefit check in October 1995.2 Mr. Mosser's Health Insurance Subsidy was terminated effective July 1995, and the net monthly benefit received by Mrs. Kirkley as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary did not include a Health Insurance Subsidy payment. It is the Division's practice to send each retiree added to the system a "retiree packet" that includes, among other things, an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy and an explanation of the subsidy, as well as a booklet containing an explanation of all of the benefits available to retirees and beneficiaries under the Florida Retirement System. The process of sending out the retiree packets is automated, so that a packet is sent to every retiree and beneficiary when they are first entered into the system. Pursuant to the Division's regular practice, Mrs. Kirkley would have been sent the retiree packet in October 1995, when she was added to the system as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The Division also sends retirees and beneficiaries an annual newsletter, and the Health Insurance Subsidy was discussed in the 1995 and 1996 newsletters. Mrs. Kirkley received a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments, as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, each July, December, and January. This statement includes a separate entry for the Health Insurance Subsidy, with the amount of the subsidy noted; Mrs. Kirkley would have been aware of this entry because the Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments that she had been receiving on her own account would have shown an amount paid as her Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley received her first statement in December 1995, and it would have been apparent from the statement that no amount was included for the Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley does not recall having any direct contact with the Division between the time she submitted her application for the retirement benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary and late September 1997, when she called the Division to request that the monthly check be electronically deposited in her bank account. During the conversation in September 1997, the Division's representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that she was entitled to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, in addition to the monthly retirement benefit she received as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The representative told Mrs. Kirkley that she would send her an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy, which the representative did in September 1997. Mrs. Kirkley completed the application she received from the Division and sent it to the Division with a cover letter dated October 17, 1997. The application required certification of health insurance coverage, which Mrs. Kirkley satisfied by attaching a copy of her Medicare Health Insurance card. Mrs. Kirkley did not hear anything from the Division for quite a long time. She contacted the Division and was told that they had not received her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy. The Division sent her another application form, which she completed and sent to the Division in January 1998, and she began receiving a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse; she also received retroactive benefits effective July 1997 through December 1997, a period of six months prior to January 1998. The Division eventually located Mrs. Kirkley's October 1997 application, and it advised her in a letter dated April 6, 1998, that she would receive retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for an additional three months, moving the effective date of her entitlement to the benefits back to April 1997. Including the retroactive benefits she received, Mrs. Kirkley has been receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse since April 1997. She also had the benefit of Mr. Mosser's May and June 1995 Health Insurance Subsidy, which were paid by the Division because it was not aware that Mr. Mosser was deceased. Mrs. Kirkley seeks to recover an additional $1890.00 in retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, which is the difference between the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she has received and the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she would have received had the benefits been paid to her retroactive to Mr. Mosser's death (21 months x $90.00 per month = $1890.00). Summary The evidence presented by Mrs. Kirkley is insufficient to establish her entitlement to retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments from July 1995 to March 1997. It is uncontroverted that she submitted her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy with her certification of health insurance coverage in October 1997 and that the Division paid retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for the six months prior to the date it received the application. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Division should be required to pay her the additional retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments because it failed to send her an application until September 1997. The Division did not make any specific representations to her regarding her entitlement to the Health Insurance Subsidy payments until September 1997, and she failed to establish by the greater weight of the credible evidence that she did not receive any general information from the Division that included information regarding the Health Insurance Subsidy. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley knew or should have known in December 1995 that she was not receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, when she received her first statement detailing the components of her gross monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, and she could have made inquiry of the Division at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Review of Final Agency Action filed by Mary J. Mosser, now known as Mary J. Kirkley. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 20th day of November, 2001.
The Issue The issues concern the question of Petitioner's responsibility to pay additional insurance premiums related to Family I coverage in the State Employees' Group Health Insurance program for the period February 1981 through April 1982, based upon alleged underpayments of required premiums. See Section 110.123, Florida Statutes and Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact According to the Florida law which has application in this dispute, when a husband and wife were employed by separate agencies of the State of Florida, cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan was defrayed by those state agencies. This is as contrasted with the circumstance in which one spouse would be responsible for contributing to the cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan, should the second spouse cease to be employed by the second state agency. The State of Florida, Department of Administration, has she responsibility for administering the State Group Health Insurance Plan, to include collection of necessary premium payments. Both Petitioner and his wife had been reported in the records of the Department of Administration as employed by the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services respectively, as employees entitled to participate in the spouse program for payment of health care, i.e., the program in which no contribution is made by the employees toward payment of health insurance premiums. On October 28, 1982, the Petitioner informed the Department of Administration on a form provided by the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration that his wife, Caroline Wilson, had terminated her employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services effective March 23, 1982. This form was executed in cooperation with the Petitioner's employing agency. The second part of the form related to information to be provided by the wife and her employing agency on the question of her employment was not completed by the spouse nor signed off by her employing agency. A copy of this item or form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. As a result of information he provided, Petitioner was informed of an underpayment of premiums for the period May 1982 through November 1982, related to his wife's lack of eligibility for contribution from her employing agency and the responsibility of the Petitioner to substitute as payor of those premiums. This referred to the point of departure identified by the Petitioner allowing for a grace month of April 1982, thereby making the period of underpayment May 1982 through November 1982. The amount of nonpayment was $280.06, which was eventually reimbursed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, in January 1984, Respondent, Bureau of Insurance, in an attempt to ascertain why Health and Rehabilitative Services had not contributed the full amount of its share to the insurance related to Caroline P. Wilson in times before March 23, 1982, discovered that the wife, Caroline P. Wilson, had terminated her employment some time before March 23, 1982. As was revealed in the final hearing, the last day of employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services was January 3, 1981. After that date, Mrs. Wilson did not return to her job at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, and was eventually considered to have abandoned that job. (It was the first impression of the Department of Administration that she had last been employed in December 1980 and as a consequence this case pertains to the claim of the Department of Administration that there is an underpayment related to the family coverage which starts on February 1, 1981 and runs until April 1, 1982, allowing for a credit of overpayment in the amount of $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total claimed of $382.64. It is this amount that Petitioner took issue with and requested a timely formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes' hearing to resolve.) Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the date from which the responsibility of the husband to contribute the premiums share no longer being provided by Health and Rehabilitative Services would be January 1981, as opposed to December 1980. Allowing for the grace month of February 1981, the payments would be due for March 1, 1981, through April 1, 1982, allowing credit again for the $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total due and owing in the way of underpayment of $353.90.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed in the state as a life and health insurance agent and as a health insurance agent. Respondent was employed by H.B. Barach and Associates during the month of April, 1991. Respondent and his employer began selling insurance policies for Farmers Health Trust ("Farmers") sometime in April, 1991. North American Life Insurance was the prospective underwriter for Farmers. Respondent was informed by Petitioner's West Palm Beach office that no complaints had ever been filed against Farmers but that no verification could be made as to whether Farmers was licensed to do business in the state. Respondent reviewed the policy and began selling policies to be issued by Farmers. Pursuant to the customary business practice in the community, Respondent included the paper work required to be licensed to sell policies for Farmers when Respondent submitted the first premiums. Farmers has never been licensed to do business in this state. North American Life Insurance never agreed to be the underwriter for Farmers. Respondent was never licensed to sell insurance policies to be issued by Farmers. On or about April 1 and 16, 1991, respectively, Respondent solicited and sold to Ms. Clarice Hunt and Mr. Milton Seagrave, separate health insurance policies to be issued by Farmers. Ms. Hunt and Mr. Seagrave each issued a check in the amount of $480 payable to Respondent's employer pursuant to Respondent's instructions. Respondent advised Ms. Hunt and Mr. Seagrave that their money would be refunded to them if Farmers declined to issue a policy. Ms. Hunt had difficulty obtaining health insurance due to a previous back injury for which she had filed a workers' compensation claim. Mr. Seagrave had been previously rejected by Mutual of Omaha. Ms. Hunt's check and Mr. Seagrave's check was deposited and negotiated by Respondent's employer. No policy was ever issued by Farmers to either Ms. Hunt or Mr. Seagrave, and neither was ever refunded their money. After April 16, 1991, Respondent was informed by his employer that Farmers did not have an underwriter. Respondent sold no other insurance policies to be issued by Farmers. Respondent made repeated, good faith attempts to obtain refunds for Ms. Hunt and Mr. Seagrave. Respondent was willing but financially unable to personally refund the moneys to Ms. Hunt and Mr. Seagrave. When it was apparent to Respondent that his employer would not refund the money to Ms. Hunt, Respondent assisted Ms. Hunt in filing a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent knowingly solicited insurance on behalf of Farmers without holding an agency appointment to do so. On June 5, 1992, a Consent Order was issued incorporating the terms of a Settlement Stipulation between Petitioner and Mr. Herbert Barach. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Stipulation, Mr. Barach agreed to reimburse Ms. Hunt and Mr. Seagrave for the premium paid by each in the amount of $480. Respondent has no other disciplinary history.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.611(8) and (10), 626.561(1), 626.621(8), and 626.901, Florida Statutes, placing Respondent's licenses on probation for one year, and assessing a fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 14th day of January, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the FRS, including the HIS benefit. The HIS benefit is a program authorized by Florida law. The HIS benefit is calculated at five dollars times the number of years of creditable state service at the time of retirement. Only those members of the FRS who receive monthly retirement benefits are eligible to apply for the HIS. Petitioner worked for the Duval County School Board and earned creditable state service in the FRS. In July 2004, Petitioner began his participation in the FRS Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). Petitioner's anticipated DROP termination date was June 30, 2009. In September 2004, Respondent mailed Petitioner an acknowledgement of receipt of his DROP application to his address of record on file with Respondent. Along with the acknowledgement of DROP application, Respondent provided Petitioner an estimate of his pension benefit and enclosed the "Preparing to Retire" brochure referenced in the estimate. The "Preparing to Retire" brochure discussed the HIS benefit and stated, in pertinent part, that: Around the time you receive your first monthly benefit payment after termination, an application for HIS, Form HIS-1, will be mailed to you. You must return a completed HIS application to the Division of Retirement within 6 months after your retirement benefit starts in order to be paid retroactive to your retirement date. If you fail to return the form within the 6- month period, retroactive subsidy payments will be limited to a maximum of 6 months. You are responsible for obtaining certification of your health insurance coverage and applying for the HIS. (Emphasis provided in the original.) In March 2009, Respondent mailed Petitioner forms, brochures and informational material relevant to his upcoming DROP termination to the address of record on file with Respondent. The cover letter advised Petitioner that: After your name is added to the retired payroll, you will receive a retiree packet that contains an information letter, After You Retire booklet, Tax Withholding Certificate for Pension Payments (Form W -4P), Health Insurance Subsidy application (Form HIS-1) and Direct Deposit Authorization form. The retiree packet is mailed approximately one week before you receive your first monthly benefit. (Emphasis provided in the original.) On or about June 9, 2009, Petitioner completed his DROP termination form and the form was received by Respondent. In July 2009, Respondent added Petitioner to the retired payroll for him to begin receiving his monthly pension benefit. In July 2009, Respondent also mailed Petitioner's retiree packet to his address of record on file with Respondent. The retiree packet contained a cover letter, an information brochure titled "After You Retire," a direct deposit authorization form, a tax withholding form, and an HIS application. The cover letter of the retiree packet included the following: YOUR RETIREMENT PACKET INCLUDES: - "After You Retire" Brochure - PLEASE READ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION * * * -Health Insurance Subsidy Certification (Form HIS-1) and Instructions Page * * * HEALTH INSURANCE SUBSIDY (HIS): The HIS is extra money that is added to the monthly retirement benefit of eligible payees to help with the cost of health insurance. The member, or other payee who is the spouse or other financial dependent, may be eligible if he/she has health insurance, Medicare, or Tricare. If you are eligible to apply for the HIS, Form HIS-1 has been enclosed. It is your responsibility to obtain certification of your health insurance coverage and submit the enclosed Form HIS-1 to the Division. Please note that if Form HIS-1 is NOT received by the Division within six months of your first benefit payment, retroactive HIS benefits will be limited to a maximum of six months as long as your health insurance certification covers all six months. (Emphasis provided in the original.) The "After You Retire" brochure, included in the retiree packet, dedicates several pages to explaining the HIS benefit. It reiterates that it is the retiree's responsibility to obtain health insurance coverage, and to apply for the benefit by completing the HIS application included in the retiree packet. It is the Respondent's practice to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 608-4.020, by mailing the retiree packet, which includes the HIS application, to retirees when they are placed on the retired payroll. In a separate mailing in July 2009, Respondent sent Petitioner's first monthly pension benefit check to his address of record. Petitioner has continued to receive his monthly pension benefit check from Respondent by mail uninterrupted to the date of the hearing. Within the first five months of a retiree’s being placed on the retired payroll, Respondent runs an HIS reminder listing to notify it of retirees who have not submitted their HIS applications. Respondent's practice is to send an HIS reminder letter to retirees on the HIS reminder listing to notify them that their HIS applications have not been received, encouraging them to file for the HIS benefit, and enclosing an HIS application. Petitioner was listed on Respondent's December 2009, HIS reminder listing. In January 2010, Respondent mailed Petitioner an HIS reminder letter to his address of record. The HIS reminder letter included yet another HIS application. Each January and July, Respondent mails a newsletter to retirees (FRS Retiree Newsletter). The HIS benefit is specifically referenced in articles in the July 2009, January 2010, July 2010, July 2011, and January 2012, FRS Retiree Newsletters. The articles range in substance and include information regarding a retiree's responsibility to apply for the HIS benefit; an explanation that the HIS benefit is not guaranteed; notification that the Florida Legislature can reduce or eliminate it; information about the tax consequences of the HIS benefit; notice that retirees can see whether they are receiving the HIS benefit by reviewing their annual statement; and that if they have questions they can consult their "After Your Retire" brochure, go online, or call the Retired Payroll Section. In January of each year, Respondent mails retirees who have received retirement benefits during the prior year information to assist them in preparing their tax returns. Included in the January mailing is the IRS Form 1099-R, an annual statement detailing the income payment types received (Retiree Annual Statement), and the January FRS Retiree Newsletter. The Retiree Annual Statement identifies two different types of income payments made to retirees: (1) the monthly retirement benefit, and (2) the monthly HIS benefit. The amount of HIS benefit reflected on Petitioner's 2009, 2010 and 2011 Retiree Annual Statement is $0.00. Petitioner disputes whether he received Respondent's various mailings regarding the HIS benefit. However, Petitioner does not dispute that he has received his monthly pension benefit check by mail from Respondent each month from July 2009, to present. Petitioner receives "a lot of junk mail," but he keeps a close eye out for his monthly pension benefit check. Respondent's records reflect, and Petitioner does not dispute, that his address at the time he retired was 1923 Durkee Drive West. Respondent's records reflect that Petitioner's address changed to 10836 Peaceful Harbor Drive, effective May 3, 2010. These two addresses are the only addresses where Petitioner has lived since he retired. It is incumbent upon a retiree to keep Respondent notified of any change of address. Respondent's records reflect that its mailings to Petitioner, including his monthly pension benefit check, have not been returned as undeliverable to Respondent. At some point in 2012, Petitioner called Respondent to inquire about changing his tax deduction status. During the course of that conversation, Respondent reminded Petitioner that he had not applied for and was not receiving the HIS benefit. Petitioner then submitted his HIS application to Respondent in December 2012. Petitioner began receiving his HIS benefit effective December 2012. Based on the date of receipt of Petitioner's HIS application, Petitioner was eligible for six months of retroactive HIS benefit, effective June 2012. Petitioner argues that Respondent should have communicated the requirement for him to apply for the HIS benefit by certified mail, by an active telephone call, or by notification in the envelope he receives his monthly pension benefit check. Petitioner asserts no statutory, regulatory, or other authority for this proposition. Petitioner also alleges that Respondent ultimately sent the HIS application to him by certified mail, and that it was the only certified mail he has received from Respondent. However, the record reflects that the certified mail Petitioner is referring to is Respondent's January 25, 2013, final agency action letter sent to Petitioner. Petitioner further asserts that the HIS benefit is an earned right, an entitlement, not subject to arbitrary forfeiture, and is unclaimed property under chapter 717, Florida Statutes. Again, Petitioner provides no authority for this argument.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for additional HIS benefits retroactive to his retirement date. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's insurance Policy Form No. SL-94.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted Policy Form No. SL-94 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy") to Respondent for approval as a stop loss policy pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, on or about August 15, 1995. The Policy, standing alone, meets all applicable requirements for approval as a stop loss policy under Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The Policy obligates Petitioner to pay benefits to an employer, or the trust established by or for the employer, which employer is responsible for the payment of benefits to its employees or their dependents under a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan (hereinafter referred to as "the Plan") qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). The Policy purports to provide insurance only to the employer. On its face, the Policy does not assume any of the employer's obligations under the Plan to provide insurance directly to the employer's employees. Under the Policy, Petitioner is obligated to reimburse the employer only after the employer pays a limited amount of benefits under the Plan to any person who is covered under the Plan, i.e. employees or their dependents. The amount of Plan benefits that an employer must pay before Petitioner is obligated to begin reimbursement is determined by specific and aggregate attachment points or deductibles as defined in the Policy's Schedule of Insurance. The specific attachment point is the Plan benefit amount which is wholly retained by the employer for all claims incurred by each covered person during each contract year. The Plan benefit amount does not include deductibles, coinsurance amounts or any other expense or claims which are not reimbursable under the terms of the Plan nor does it include expenses which are reimbursable from any other source. The aggregate attachment point or deductible is the Plan benefit amount which is wholly retained by the employer for all covered persons during a contract year. The Policy's Schedule of Insurance does not specify what the specific and aggregate attachment points will be. However, record evidence indicates that Petitioner intends to market the policy with a specific attachment point as low as $500. Therefore, if the Plan has a deductible of $250 and the Policy has a specific attachment point of $500, the employee would pay the first $250 of eligible expenses, the employer would pay the next $500 of eligible expenses, and Petitioner would reimburse the employer for 100 percent of any excess eligible expenses, for each covered person during a contract year. The Policy's eligible expenses are the covered charges or expenses which are incurred by a covered person while covered under the Plan in the course of treatment for an injury or illness and paid under the Plan subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of the Plan document. In other words, the eligible expenses under the Policy will mirror the eligible expenses of the Plan. Record evidence indicates that Petitioner intends to market the Policy to employers with less than fifty (50) employees. The Policy does not contain provisions related to the following protections: guaranteed availability for any small group employer regardless of whether its employees are sick or have preexisting conditions; guaranteed renewability unless the policyholder fails to pay the premium or commits fraud; limitations on exclusions for pre- existing conditions; portability which allows employees to move from one employer to another regard- less of preexisting conditions; community rated premiums; and, periods of open enrollment. ERISA self-funded benefit plans are not regulated by the state regardless of their terms and conditions. They are not required to include the above referenced protections. If the Plan excludes specific health risks or preexisting conditions such as AIDS, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, neither the employer nor the Petitioner would be obligated to pay benefits for those risks. Additionally, the Plan is subject to whatever deductible limits the small employer wishes to set. Respondent disapproved the Policy by letter dated August 21, 1995. Respondent correctly rejected the Policy as being inappropriate for the small group health insurance market. The Policy is inappropriate because Petitioner intends to market it to self-insured small group employers with attachment points so low ($500) that it becomes a de facto health insurance policy instead of a stop loss policy. Respondent would not approve a stop loss policy for a small group employer's Plan with specific attachment points at $5,000 or less. Respondent would approve a stop loss policy for a small group employer's Plan with specific attachment points as low as $9,000 or $10,000, regardless of the terms and conditions of that Plan. In that instance, the employer assumes significant risk of loss as a self-funded insurer and the stop loss policy operates to limit that loss. However, an ERISA benefit plan combined with a stop loss policy having specific attachment points as low as $500, such as the one at issue here, substantially limits the self-insured employer's risk of loss to a nominal amount and substitutes Petitioner as a small group health insurer with none of the protections required by Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order disapproving Petitioner's Policy Form No. SL-94, for use in Florida's small group health insurance market. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1996. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Reject the first sentence as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Second sentence accepted as restated in Conclusions of Law 19-21 and 26-27. Rejected. It is a question of fact whether the Policy is a stop loss policy or a health insurance policy regardless of its denomination. Specifically reject Petitioner's finding that the Policy does not violate public policy as expressed in Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes. See Conclusions of Law 24-27. Accepted in Conclusion of Law 23. Accepted in part as restated in Findings of Fact 15-16. See also Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law and legal argument which is not persuasive as applied to the facts of this case. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. First sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Next five sentences are not findings of fact. Specifically reject any implication that the Policy is a stop loss policy. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. First two sentences are not findings of fact. Reject any implication that there is no public policy "relating to the issuance of a stop loss policy in the State of Florida to a Florida employer employing 50 or fewer employees." Accept that the state does not regulate employer self-funded medical benefit programs. See Finding of Fact 12. Accept the last sentence as restated in Finding of Fact 15 and Conclusion of Law 24. Rejected. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the legislature was aware that "the bill could increase the likelihood that an employer would choose to self- insure and due to ERISA would be able to avoid state regulation of the insurance product provided to employees." However, the referenced exhibit is rejected as evidence of legislative intent to exclude "related insurance products" from "the statute's regulatory or public policy purview." Rejected for the reasons set forth in the ruling above. Rejected. See Conclusions of Law 24. Substance accepted as restated in Findings of Facts 12 and Conclusions of Law 24. Substance accepted as restated in Findings of Facts 16. First sentence not a finding of fact. Second sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence; See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. Accept in part as restated in Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. A recitation of the testimony is not a finding of fact; substance accepted as restated in Finding of Fact 16. Accept that the state has no specific statutes or rules regulating attachment points in stop loss insurance policies. See Conclusions of Law 19. However, Section 627.6699(2), Florida Statutes, is applicable here because the Policy is a de facto health insurance policy. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. First sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 19. First sentence rejected; More like a conclusion of law or legal argument the substance of which is not persuasive. Second sentence irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. NAIC's stop loss model act supports the proposition that the Policy is not a stop loss insurance policy but rather a health insurance policy. Accepted in part as restated in Conclusions of Law 19. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Not a finding of fact. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 11, 15-16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10, 15-16, and Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4-8 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and Conclusions of Law 22. Accept that the Policy provides for a specific attachment point of not less than $500; See Findings of Fact 8, 15 and 16. There is no evidence that the Policy's specific attachment point can be no more than $1,000. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 5-8. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted as restated in Conclusions of Law 22. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 9, 11-13 and Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 9-13. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 14. Reject that Petitioner could totally avoid the coverage responsibilities otherwise imposed by Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes, merely by setting the Policy's attachment points at the same level as the deductible in the Plan. If the Plan's deductible was $500 and the Policy's specific attachment point was $500, the employee would pay the first $500 of expenses, the employer would be responsible for the next $500 of expenses, and Petitioner would reimburse the employer for 100 percent of any excess eligible expenses for that employee during the contract year. However, Petitioner can totally avoid paying for state mandated protections because the Policy will mirror any prohibited exclusions or provisions in the Plan. Substance accepted in part; See Findings of Fact 15-16. There is no evidence that the Policy's specific attachment point can be as high as $2,000. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 16; See Conclusions of Law 24-27. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Frank J. Santry, Esquire Granger, Santry, et al. Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive retroactive retiree health insurance subsidy benefit payments in addition to those already received.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The FRS is a state-administered retirement system as defined by Florida law. The health insurance subsidy (HIS) benefit is a program provided by Florida Statutes to help offset the cost of a retiree's monthly medical insurance premiums. Currently, the amount paid is $5 times the years of creditable state service at the time of the retirement calculations. Only those people who were members of the FRS, who apply for and receive monthly retirement benefits are eligible for the HIS. Ms. Shaul worked for the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), and its predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for 35 years. She was enrolled in the defined benefit plan of the FRS and earned creditable service in the FRS. In October 2001, Ms. Shaul began her participation in the FRS Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). In June 2006, the Division provided Ms. Shaul certain forms, brochures and informational material relevant to her DROP participation termination. Via the cover letter, Ms. Shaul was advised in pertinent part: When your name is added to the retired payroll, you will receive a "retiree packet" that contains an information letter, "After you Retire" booklet, W-4P "Withholding Certificate for Pension Payments," Health Insurance Subsidy application, and Direct Deposit Authorization. The retiree packet is mailed approximately one week before you receive your first monthly benefit. In September 2006, Ms. Shaul completed the DROP termination forms and returned them to the Division. On October 1, 2006, Ms. Shaul retired from her state position. As a prior state employee, Ms. Shaul is a member of the FRS. In mid-October 2006, the Division paid Ms. Shaul her DROP payout. At the end of October 2006, the Division paid Ms. Shaul her first monthly service retirement benefit. A copy of the retiree packet sent to Ms. Shaul is not reflected in her file, as the Division did (and does) not place copies of forms or booklets sent automatically. It is the Division's practice to send each retiree added to the system a retiree packet that includes, among other things, an application for the HIS and an explanation of the subsidy, as well as a booklet containing an explanation of all of the benefits available to retirees and beneficiaries under the FRS. There was no evidence that these forms or booklets were not automatically sent to Ms. Shaul. It is the responsibility of an FRS retiree to apply for the HIS benefit. In the event an FRS retiree does not apply for the HIS benefit, the Division will send a reminder memorandum notifying each retiree that their HIS application has not been received and encouraging them to file for it. In January or early February 2007, Ms. Shaul received a statement indicating that her HIS benefits were not being paid. Ms. Shaul contacted the Division and requested that the appropriate application form be provided to her. Ms. Shaul received the application and completed it; however, she did not return the application in a manner that could be traced, i.e., via certified or registered mail. The Division has no record of receiving this 2007 application. For the next several years, Ms. Shaul did not follow up on the HIS benefit to ensure that she was being properly reimbursed. Each year she would receive her financial statement from the State and immediately provide it to her accountant for tax preparation. In January 2010, Ms. Shaul telephoned the Division to inquire about the HIS benefit. During the 2007-2012 period, the Division sent out newsletters and other notices to all retirees specifically referencing the HIS.2/ The Division reviewed Ms. Shaul's service folder via its Integrated Retirement Information System. The Division established Ms. Shaul's HIS benefit effective date as July 1, 2009, based on her January 2010 telephone call to the Division, and the fact that her health insurance premiums were being deducted from her monthly service retirement benefit payment. The Division's record substantiates that Ms. Shaul was paid HIS benefits totaling $1,200.00 ($300 for the months of January and February 2010, and $900 for the six months of retroactive benefits from July 1, 2009, through December 2009).3/ The Division issued a notice of final agency action on October 24, 2012, wherein Ms. Shaul was advised that her verbal application for the HIS benefit during the January 2010 telephone call was the earliest record of a HIS benefit being requested on her behalf. The issue is not whether Ms. Shaul remembers completing the HIS benefit application, but when the Division received the application. The credible, persuasive evidence in the record establishes that Ms. Shaul contacted the Division in January 2010 and received the HIS benefit payment for the prior six months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, issue a final order denying Ms. Shaul's request for additional HIS benefits retroactive to the date of her termination of DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 5th day of June, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be determined are: whether Petitioners have standing; whether the petition of Automated HealthCare Solutions, Inc. (AHCS), was timely filed1/; and whether Respondent’s proposed rules 69L-31.005(2)(d), 69L-31.016(1), and 69L-31.016(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority on the grounds raised by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Challenged Proposed Rules At issue in the proposed rule challenge proceeding are three provisions that are part of an overall rulemaking exercise by Respondent Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent, Department, or Division), to amend Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-31. That rule chapter bears the misnomer “Utilization and Reimbursement Dispute Rule”--a misnomer because, rather than a single rule, the chapter currently contains 12 rules, with a history note of one additional rule that was repealed. The existing 12 rules in chapter 69L-31, in effect without amendment since November 2006, carry out the Department’s statutory authority to receive, review, and resolve reimbursement disputes between workers’ compensation insurance carriers (carriers) and providers of health care services, medication, and supplies to injured workers. See § 440.13(7), Fla. Stat. A “reimbursement dispute” is “any disagreement” between a provider and carrier “concerning payment for medical treatment.” § 440.13(1)(q), Fla. Stat. The proposed amendments to chapter 69L-31 include revisions to existing rules, the repeal of one existing rule, and the addition of two new rules. The challenges at issue here are directed to both paragraphs of a newly proposed rule which would become rule 69L-31.016, if adopted. One challenge is also directed to an amendment of an existing rule. Proposed rule 69L-31.016, entitled “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement or Involving Compensability or Medical Necessity,” would provide as follows, if adopted: When either the health care provider or carrier asserts that a contract between them establishes the amount of reimbursement to the health care provider, or where the carrier provided health care services to the injured worker through a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement pursuant to Section 440.134, F.S., the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment in Chapter 440, F.S., to assist the health care provider and carrier in their independent application of the provisions of the contract or workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to resolve the dispute. When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the determination will only address line items not related to compensability or medical necessity. If the petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating the carrier authorized the treatment, the Department will issue a finding of improper disallowance or adjustment. Although these rules were not proposed for adoption until December 2016, Respondent has been implementing an unadopted policy that is consistent with paragraph (1) since August 2015. Respondent also has been implementing an unadopted policy that is similar to paragraph (2) since November 2015. The other object of challenge is the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d), which currently provides: If the answer to question 5 on the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Form [asking if reimbursement is pursuant to a contract or rate agreement] is yes, [submit] a copy of all applicable provision(s) of the reimbursement contract. Although the evidence was less than clear, it does not appear that Respondent is already implementing this proposed change. The Parties Petitioners and Intervenors all are regular participants (or, in the case of FSASC, an association whose members are regular participants) in provider-carrier reimbursement disputes pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes, before the Division. Petitioners represent the provider side of these reimbursement disputes, while Intervenors represent the carrier side of the reimbursement disputes. Petitioner Oak Hill is a private, for-profit hospital that cares for thousands of Florida patients each year, including injured workers. Petitioner Parallon provides revenue cycle services for HCA-affiliated Florida hospitals, including Oak Hill. Among other things, Parallon acts on behalf of the HCA-affiliated hospitals in workers’ compensation claim disputes. Parallon acts on the hospitals’ behalf to resolve reimbursement disputes with carriers, including: acting for the hospitals to resolve reimbursement disputes under chapter 69L-31; coordinating any resultant administrative litigation before DOAH; and taking steps necessary to collect amounts owed following receipt of the Division’s determination. Parallon is expressly authorized to participate in reimbursement disputes as a “petitioner,” as defined in proposed rule 69L-31.003, on behalf of Oak Hill and other HCA-affiliated hospitals. Oak Hill and Parallon are regulated by, and must comply, with the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted) in reimbursement disputes with carriers. Petitioner FSASC is the primary organization of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) in Florida. Among the purposes of the FSASC is to advance the ASC industry, and its member centers’ interests, through governmental advocacy. To that extent, the FSASC maintains close contact with state agencies to monitor and provide input into legislation and regulations that govern or affect ASC operations. In furtherance of this role, the FSASC has been an active participant in all phases of Respondent’s rulemaking efforts with regard to the proposed rules. Another purpose of the FSASC is to promote, assist, and enhance its members’ ability to provide ambulatory surgical services to injured workers efficiently and cost effectively throughout Florida and, in so doing, promote and protect the interests of the public, patients, and FSASC members. FSASC’s participation in this proceeding is consistent with its purposes, and the relief sought--invalidation of the challenged proposed rules (with possible attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this proceeding)--is appropriate for an organization to pursue in a representative capacity. A substantial number of FSASC’s members provide health care services to patients who are injured workers in Florida and who receive workers’ compensation benefits in accordance with chapter 440. These health care services are reimbursable by the patients’ employers’ carriers. FSASC’s members are participants in reimbursement disputes with carriers and are regulated by, and must comply with, the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). Petitioner AHCS is a technology and prescription medication claims processing company. Many physicians who dispense medication from their offices to injured workers assign their rights, title, and interest to the prescription medication claims to AHCS. Prescription Partners, LLC, is wholly-owned and operated by AHCS and is the billing entity of AHCS. In some instances, AHCS contracts with physicians, while Prescription Partners, LLC, pursues the billing and reimbursement disputes on behalf of the physicians under the contract of assignment. AHCS is authorized to participate in reimbursement disputes as a “petitioner,” as defined in proposed rule 69L-31.003. As a participant in reimbursement disputes, AHCS is regulated by, and must comply with, the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). Respondent is the state agency tasked with administering chapter 440 in a way that promotes “an efficient and self-executing” workers’ compensation system “which is not an economic or administrative burden” and ensures “a prompt and cost-effective delivery of payments.” § 440.015, Fla. Stat. The Division’s medical services section administers the provider-carrier reimbursement dispute process and issues the required determinations pursuant to section 440.13(7). The determinations are made in accordance with chapter 440 and the applicable reimbursement manuals, which are codified as rules. Intervenor Zenith is a foreign, for-profit corporation licensed by the Department to provide workers’ compensation insurance to employers throughout Florida. As a carrier, and in the normal course of its workers’ compensation claim-handling responsibilities, Zenith regularly authorizes, adjusts, and pays for medical benefits for injured workers for causally-related and medically necessary treatment, including treatment rendered by physicians, hospitals, ASCs, pharmacies and prescription drug vendors, physical therapists, and other licensed health care providers, such as Petitioners. As a carrier, Zenith is regulated by chapter 440 and the related rules of the Division, including chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). All parties stipulated that the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately affect the rights and obligations of Zenith, and directly impact the financial obligations of Zenith in medical bill payment, as well as in any statutory reimbursement dispute between a health care provider and Zenith under section 440.13(7). The proposed rules dictate which processes will govern reimbursement disputes involving Zenith, and whether Zenith may rely fully on the provisions of reimbursement contracts. Intervenors, the Summit Companies, are Florida- licensed monoline workers’ compensation insurance companies that are managed by a managing general agent, Summit Consulting LLC, and regulated by the Department. Pursuant to their workers’ compensation insurance policies, the Summit Companies pay workers’ compensation claims for injured workers, including payment of medical benefits for care provided to injured workers by health care providers who have filed petitions for reimbursement dispute resolution under chapter 69L-31. Also, the Summit Companies have a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement authorized by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) pursuant to section 440.134. Their delegated managed care entity, Heritage Summit HealthCare, LLC, has its own proprietary PPO network. The Summit Companies, either corporately or through their delegated managed care entity, regularly authorize, adjust, and pay medical benefits for injured workers for causally- related and medically necessary treatment, including payment for treatment rendered by physicians, hospitals, ASCs, pharmacies and prescription drug vendors, physical therapists, and other licensed health care providers, such as Petitioners. All parties stipulated that the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately affect the rights and obligations of the Summit Companies, and directly impact their financial obligations in medical bill payment, as well as in reimbursement disputes under section 440.13(7) and chapter 69L-31. The proposed rules dictate which processes will govern reimbursement disputes involving the Summit Companies, including whether the Summit Companies may rely on their managed care arrangements and contracts regulated under the authority of AHCA. To the same extent that all Intervenors are directly and immediately impacted by the challenged proposed rules, Petitioners Oak Hill, Parallon, and AHCS, as well as the members of Petitioner FSASC, are also directly and immediately impacted by the proposed challenged rules, which govern reimbursement disputes under section 440.13(7). Just as the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately impact Intervenors’ financial obligations in medical bill payment to providers, such as Petitioners, the challenged proposed rules also directly and immediately impact Petitioners’ financial rights in having medical bills paid by carriers, such as Intervenors. The challenged proposed rules dictate what processes will be available in reimbursement disputes, not only for Intervenors, but for Petitioners. The challenged proposed rules dictate when the cost-efficient reimbursement dispute process will be, and will not be, fully available to Petitioners and FSASC’s members, and when the prompt delivery of payment envisioned as the end result of the reimbursement dispute process will, or will not be, available to them. The parties also stipulated that the Division’s challenged proposed rules immediately and substantially affect Intervenors because prior authorization, the managed care defense, provider contract disputes, and medical necessity all have been raised as issues in prior chapter 69L-31 provider disputes with these carriers. It stands to reason that the providers who are on the other side of these disputes with carriers are just as immediately and substantially impacted by the proposed rules in this regard. Reason aside, Respondent readily stipulated to the direct, immediate, and substantial impacts to Intervenors, but steadfastly disputed that Petitioners (or the members of Petitioner FSASC) must necessarily be impacted to the same degree. Yet they are, after all, the other side of the reimbursement dispute coin. It is difficult to understand how one side of a dispute could be directly, immediately, and substantially impacted by proposed rules regulating the dispute process, while the other side of the dispute would not be equally impacted. At hearing, the undersigned raised this seeming incongruity, and suggested that Respondent would need to explain its different positions with regard to the factual predicates for standing for Intervenors and for Petitioners, besides the obvious difference that Intervenors were supporting Respondent’s proposed rules while Petitioners were challenging them. Respondent offered no explanation for its incongruous positions, either at hearing or in its PFO. Respondent’s agreement that Intervenors are immediately, directly, and substantially affected by the challenged proposed rules serves as an admission that Petitioners (or Petitioner FSASC’s members) are also immediately, directly, and substantially affected by the challenged proposed rules. Specific examples were offered in evidence of the Division’s refusal to resolve reimbursement disputes because contracts and managed care arrangements were involved, or because payment was adjusted or disallowed due to compensability or medical necessity issues. FSASC provided a concrete example of the application of the unadopted policies to one of its members, resulting in immediate injury when the Division refused to resolve a reimbursement dispute because a contract was involved. Petitioner Oak Hill identified a single reimbursement dispute over a $49,000 underpayment that remained unresolved because of the Division’s refusal to resolve the dispute because either a contract or managed care arrangement was involved. Petitioner Parallon’s income is based, in part, on paid claims by carriers, so it loses income when these reimbursement disputes are not resolved and the carriers are not ordered to promptly pay an amount. Petitioner AHCS offered examples of reimbursement disputes that the Division refused to resolve because the carrier disallowed or adjusted payment due to compensability or medical necessity issues. AHCS also noted that the incidence of carrier disallowances and adjustments of payment for compensability and medical necessity reasons has increased since the Division stopped making determinations to resolve reimbursement disputes on those issues. At the very least, Petitioners have already been harmed in these ways: by the delay in resolving reimbursement disputes, which includes lost cash flow and the time value of the money that carriers are not ordered to pay; by the increased personnel costs necessary to try some other way to pursue these claims; and by the prospect of court filing fees and attorney’s fees to try to litigate their right to payment when deprived of the statutory mechanism for cost-efficient resolution of reimbursement disputes. Conceivably, providers will not have recourse in court to contest disallowance or adjustment of payment, given Respondent’s exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement. § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat. Meanwhile, carriers immediately benefit from delay, by not being ordered to promptly pay claims. In an annual report addressing reimbursement dispute determinations for the fiscal year from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, the Division reported that in 85.5 percent of its reimbursement dispute determinations, it determined that the health care providers had been underpaid. Overview of Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Dispute Process Under Florida’s statutory workers’ compensation system, injured workers report their injury to the employer and/or the carrier. With an exception for emergency care, a health care provider must receive authorization for treatment from the carrier prior to providing treatment. After providing treatment, health care providers, including hospitals and physicians, must submit their bills to employers’ carriers; they are prohibited from billing the injured employees who received the treatment. These bills typically have multiple line items, such as for pharmaceutical prescriptions, diagnostic tests, and other services rendered. Carriers are required to review all bills submitted by health care providers to identify overutilization and billing errors, and to determine whether the providers have complied with practice parameters and protocols of treatment established in accordance with chapter 440. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. Mr. Sabolic explained that the “protocols of treatment” are the standards of care in section 440.13(15). These include criteria for “[r]easonable necessary medical care of injured employees.” § 440.13(15)(c), Fla. Stat. The carrier review of provider bills must culminate in a determination of whether the bill reflects overutilization of medical services, whether there are billing errors, and whether the bill reflects any violations of the practice parameters and protocols of treatment (standards of care). If a carrier finds any of these to be the case, the carrier is required by statute to disallow or adjust payment accordingly. The carrier is expressly authorized to make this determination “without order of a judge of compensation claims or the department,” if the carrier makes its determination in compliance with section 440.13 and Department rules. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. The Department’s rules require carriers to communicate to providers the carriers’ decisions under section 440.13(6) to pay or to deny, disallow, or adjust payment, with reasons for their decisions, in an “explanation of bill review” (EOBR).5/ If a carrier contests or disputes certain line items on a medical bill, the EOBR must identify the line items disputed and the reasons for the dispute, using EOBR codes and code descriptor. The EOBR code list, with 98 codes and descriptors, is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.740(13)(b). All but two of the codes describe reasons for disallowing or adjusting payment. EOBR Code 10 means payment denial of the entire bill, when the injury or illness is not compensable. EOBR Code 11 is used for partial denial of payment, where, although there is a compensable injury or illness, a diagnosis or procedure code for a particular line item service is determined by the carrier to be unrelated to the compensable condition. The EOBR coding rule provides that up to three codes can be assigned to each line item to “describe the basis for the claim administrator’s reimbursement decision in descending order of importance[.]” In addition, there is a “free-form” box in which additional notes of explanation may be given. The carrier’s determination to disallow or adjust payment of a health care provider’s bill, made pursuant to section 440.13(6), and explained to the health care provider by means of an EOBR, is the action that sets up a potential reimbursement dispute pursuant to section 440.13(7). “Any health care provider who elects to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier under subsection (6) must, within 45 days after receipt of notice of disallowance or adjustment of payment, petition the department to resolve the dispute.” § 440.13(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The petition must be accompanied by “all documents and records that support the allegations in the petition.” Id. The carrier whose EOBR is disputed “must” then submit to the Department within 30 days of receipt of the petition all documentation substantiating the carrier’s disallowance or adjustment. § 440.13(7)(b), Fla. Stat. Section 440.13(7)(c) and (d) provide for the culmination of the reimbursement dispute process, as follows: Within 120 days after receipt of all documentation, the department must provide to the petitioner, the carrier, and the affected parties a written determination of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment. The department must be guided by standards and policies set forth in this chapter, including all applicable reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment, in rendering its determination. If the department finds an improper disallowance or improper adjustment of payment by an insurer, the insurer shall reimburse the health care provider, facility, insurer, or employer within 30 days, subject to the penalties provided in this subsection. (emphasis added). Section 440.13(7)(e) provides that the Department “shall adopt rules to carry out this subsection,” i.e., the reimbursement dispute process. As noted, the Department did so in 2006, in promulgating chapter 69L-31. The rules were transferred from AHCA, which was the state agency vested with the statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes between providers and carriers until the Department took over those functions in 2005.6/ Evolution of the Policies in the Challenged Proposed Rules Reimbursement Pursuant to a Provider-Carrier Contract or Managed Care Arrangement For approximately a decade, the Division accepted petitions to resolve reimbursement disputes when the reimbursement amount was determined by a contract between the provider and carrier. The Division resolved these disputes by issuing written determinations of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment, and if the Division determined the carrier improperly adjusted or disallowed payment, the Division would specify the contract reimbursement amount that the carrier was required to pay within 30 days. That is because section 440.13(12) expressly recognizes that reimbursement to providers shall be either an amount set as the maximum reimbursement allowance (MRA) in fee schedules (or other amount set by a statutory formula), or the agreed-upon contract price.7/ Health care network reimbursement contracts typically do not (but may) include prices stated in dollar amounts. Instead, they frequently establish the price for reimbursement as a percentage of the MRA, or a percentage of allowable charges for services rendered. The Division’s reimbursement manuals in effect today, adopted as rules, recognize in a variety of contexts that the amount a provider is to be reimbursed is the contract amount, when there is a contract between the provider and carrier. The Workers’ Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual currently in effect provides this introductory statement: Reimbursement will be made to a Florida health care provider after applying the appropriate reimbursement policies contained in this Manual. A carrier will reimburse a health care provider either the MRA in the appropriate reimbursement schedule or a mutually agreed upon contract price. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual (2016 edition) at 15, adopted and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.020, effective July 1, 2017. The manual has dozens of references to reimbursing at the contract price, such as this example for reimbursement for multiple surgeries: Reimbursement for the primary surgical procedure will be the MRA listed in Chapter 3, Part B of this Manual or the agreed upon contract price. Reimbursement for additional surgical procedure(s) will be fifty percent (50%) of the listed MRA in Chapter 3, Part B of this Manual or the agreed upon contract price. * * * Note: If there is an agreed upon contract between the health care provider and the carrier, the contract establishes the reimbursement at a specified contract price. (emphasis added). Id. at 63. Similarly, the ASC reimbursement manual in effect has multiple references to reimbursement at the contract price or contract amount, such as this example for surgical services: For each billed CPT® code listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual, the ASC shall be reimbursed either: The MRA if listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual; or The agreed upon contract price. For each billed CPT® code not listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual, the ASC shall be reimbursed: Sixty percent (60%) of the ASC’s billed charge; or The agreed upon contract price. * * * Note: If there is an agreed upon contract between the ASC and the carrier, the contract establishes the reimbursement at the specified contract price. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Ambulatory Surgical Center Reimbursement Manual (2015 edition) at 17, incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.020, effective January 1, 2016. See also ASC Manual App. A at 1 (surgical implant MRA is “50% above acquisition cost; amount certified or contract amount.”). The reimbursement manual for hospitals has similar references, including this directive for inpatient services: Except as otherwise provided in this Manual, charges for hospital inpatient services shall be reimbursed according to the Per Diem Fee Schedule provided in this Chapter or according to a mutually agreed upon contract reimbursement agreement between the hospital and the insurer. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (2014 edition) at 15, adopted and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.501, effective January 1, 2015. In 2013, the Division submitted a legislative proposal for the Department to consider including in its proposed bill. The Division requested an amendment to section 440.13 to “[r]emove contracted reimbursement from [reimbursement dispute] resolution authority of [the] department.” Jt. Ex. 51 at 1. That proposal did not lead to a statutory change. An example of how the Division resolved reimbursement disputes involving contracts before its recent policy is shown in Exhibit FS1, a “Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Determination.” According to the document, at issue was a reimbursement dispute regarding a bill for one service, for which the carrier issued an EOBR disallowing payment. The Division’s finding regarding reimbursement was that the contract at issue “provides for reimbursement at the lesser of 90% of billed charges or 90% of the fee schedule.” The Division calculated the contract price and determined that the “total correct reimbursement amount” per the contract was $2,334.60. The determination, issued June 30, 2015, was: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation has determined that the petitioner substantiated entitlement to additional reimbursement of disputed services based upon the documentation in evidence and in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual [for ASCs], 2011 Edition, Chapter 3, page 26. The respondent shall remit the petitioner the amount of $2,334.60 and provide the Division proof of reimbursement to the petitioner within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice[.] Ex. FS1 at 2. The evolution was a little different for reimbursement disputes involving workers’ compensation managed care arrangements. Rule 69L-31.015, adopted by the Department in 2006, provided as follows: A health care provider may not elect to contest under Section 440.13(7), F.S., disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier for services rendered pursuant to a managed care arrangement. Mr. Sabolic explained that while this rule was in effect, the Division would dismiss petitions that disclosed managed care arrangements. But the rule was repealed in response to a challenge to the rule’s validity. As Mr. Sabolic recalled it, the challenger was Parallon or an individual HCA-affiliated hospital. According to Mr. Sabolic, the Division agreed that it did not have the authority to simply dismiss petitions. The rule history note states that the rule repeal was effective May 22, 2014.8/ For the 15-month period from late May 2014 through late August 2015, the Division accepted reimbursement dispute petitions and resolved the reimbursement disputes, even though a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement was involved, just as it had been doing for years for reimbursement disputes involving contracts. On or about August 24, 2015, the Division changed its policy on issuing determinations when a contract (including a managed care arrangement) was alleged in the petition. In all determinations of reimbursement disputes issued after August 24, 2015, if a contract or managed care arrangement was alleged, the Division stopped making findings regarding the contracted-for reimbursement amount. Instead, the Division started reciting the fee schedule/MRA amount or applicable statutory formula amount, making no determination regarding whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment, or, if an improper adjustment or disallowance, how much the reimbursement should have been under the contract and how much the carrier was required to reimburse the provider within 30 days. The Division changed the name of the form it used from “Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Determination” to just “Reimbursement Dispute Determination,” signaling that the Division would no longer be resolving reimbursement disputes involving contracts. Instead, the following language appeared in each such determination: The amount listed above does not apply to any contractual arrangement. If a contractual arrangement exists between the parties, reimbursement should be made pursuant to such contractual arrangement. Exhibit FS3 is an example showing a Division “determination” applying its new policy to a reimbursement dispute petition filed by an ASC member of FSASC. Part IV of the form, “Reimbursement Dispute Policies and Guidelines,” reflects (as did prior determinations) that the reimbursement manual for ASCs, adopted by rule, “sets the policies and reimbursement amounts for medical bills.” As previously noted, the reimbursement manuals set reimbursement amounts at either the MRA/statutory formula or the agreed-upon contract price, consistent with the policy in section 440.13(12)(a). Nonetheless, the Division added a note to the end of part IV: NOTE: This reimbursement determination is limited in scope to standards and policies set forth in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including all applicable reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment. It does not interpret, apply or otherwise take into account any contractual arrangement between the parties governing reimbursement for services provided by health care providers, including any workers’ compensation managed care arrangement under section 440.134, Florida Statutes. Ex. FS3 at 2. Accordingly, even though the determination form reflects that the ASC petitioner met its filing requirements for a reimbursement dispute over a bill for services in the amount of $5,188.00, none of which was paid according to the EOBR, and even though the carrier failed to file a response to the petition, the Division did not make a determination that the carrier improperly disallowed payment or that the petitioner had substantiated entitlement to additional reimbursement in the amount of the agreed-upon contract price, as it had in previous determinations. Instead, the Division set forth the “correct reimbursement” amount that would apply if the MRA applied, while noting that amount would not apply if there was a contractual arrangement providing a different amount. The carrier was not ordered to remit any amount within 30 days. Reimbursement Disputes Involving Issues of Compensability or Medical Necessity Prior to November 2015, the Division resolved reimbursement disputes by determining the issues as framed by the carrier’s actions under section 440.13(6), to disallow or adjust payment of a bill or specific line items in a bill for reasons (codes) in the EOBR, which were contested by the provider in a timely-filed petition under section 440.13(7)(a). The EOBR code list contains one code (code 10) for denial of payment of an entire claim based on non-compensability of an injury or illness. One other code (code 11) is for partial denial of payment, where there is a compensable injury, but a specific line item indicates treatment unrelated to the compensable injury. Five additional codes (codes 21 through 26) apply to disallowed payments for various medical necessity reasons. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-7.740(13)(b). Prior to November 2015, the Division resolved reimbursement disputes when the provider timely petitioned to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier, as set forth in the EOBR, including when the EOBR cited compensability and/or medical necessity code(s) as the reason(s) for disallowing or adjusting payment of a provider’s bill. On or about November 2, 2015, the Division changed its policy and no longer addressed in its reimbursement dispute determinations whether a carrier properly or improperly disallowed or adjusted payment for reasons of medical necessity or compensability. Exhibit AH6 is an example of a Division written determination that makes no determination of whether a carrier properly or improperly disallowed payment of a line item based on a medical necessity issue (EOBR Code 24). Instead, the “determination” included this note: Note: The Department will not address any disallowance or adjustment of payment where the basis for the disallowance or adjustment or payment by the carrier involves denial of compensability of the claim or assertion that the specific services provided are not medically necessary. Ex. AH6 at 2. This note has been included in all determinations issued after November 2015, where payment was disallowed or adjusted based on medical necessity or compensability. Rulemaking Process The Division began rule development to incorporate its policy changes in amendments to chapter 69L-31. A Notice of Development of Proposed Rules was published on December 16, 2015. The notice set forth the preliminary text of proposed amendments, including new proposed rule 69L-31.016, entitled “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement.” The notice stated that the purpose and effect of proposed rule 69L-31.016 was “to limit the scope of dispute resolutions to compliance with standards under Chapter 440, F.S. and exclude issues of contract interpretation.” The exclusion of disallowed or adjusted payments based on issues of compensability and medical necessity, not mentioned in the statement of purpose and effect, was initially put in rule 69L-31.005, in a paragraph stating that the Department will only address specific EOBR line items where the carrier adjusted or disallowed payment and are disputed by the provider, but then stating that the Department will not address specific EOBR adjustment or disallowance items involving compensability or medical necessity, even if disputed. A rule development workshop was held on January 12, 2016. The Department published a second Notice of Development of Proposed Rules, revising the proposed changes to chapter 69L-31, including both the contract/managed care exclusion and the compensability/medical necessity exclusion. On June 10, 2016, the Division held a second rule development workshop addressing the proposed rule revisions. On December 7, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Proposed Rules, formally initiating rulemaking to revise chapter 69L-31. The notice set forth a revised proposed rule 69L-31.016. Its new title was “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement or Involving Compensability or Medical Necessity,” joining in one rule all of the new exceptions, for which the Division would not be making determinations of whether carriers properly or improperly adjusted or disallowed payments. As proposed, the rule provided: When either the health care provider or carrier asserts that a contract between them establishes the amount of reimbursement to the health care provider, or where the carrier provided health care services to the injured worker through a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement pursuant to Section 440.134, F.S., the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., to assist the health care provider and carrier in their independent application of the provisions of the contract or workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to resolve the dispute. When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., should compensability or medical necessity be later established. The stated purpose of proposed rule 69L-31.016 was to specify “that the scope of Department determinations involving reimbursement disputes is limited to findings relating to reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment, and [to clarify] that the Department will issue no findings regarding an improper disallowance or adjustment in reimbursement involving managed care contracts or when the carrier asserts that medical treatment was either not compensable or not medically necessary[.]” Jt. Ex. 3. As published in December 2016, proposed rule 69L- 31.016 cited sections 440.13(7)(e) and 440.591 as the “rulemaking authority,” and sections 440.13(7) and (12)(a) and 440.134(15) as the “laws implemented.” The Division’s notice stated that, based on its determinations as to adverse impact and regulatory costs: “A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency.” Jt. Ex. 3. By letter dated December 28, 2016, Parallon proposed a LCRA to the proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) (and to other proposed rules not at issue in this proceeding). The LCRA explained that Parallon was already experiencing increased costs because of the Division’s unadopted policy, and Parallon proposed that the most appropriate lower cost alternative to accomplish the statutory objectives was not to adopt proposed rule 69L-31.016(1). On January 5, 2017, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed rules. Petitioners (through counsel) offered comments in opposition to the proposed rules. Parallon’s counsel also submitted the LCRA letter into the record. On May 2, 2017, the Division published a Notice of Correction. The notice stated that, contrary to the statement in the Notice of Proposed Rules, SERCs had been prepared for the proposed rules, and that the SERC for proposed rule 69L-31.016 now had been revised to address the LCRA. The impression given by the various documents identified as a SERC or revised SERC, half of which are entitled “Department of Financial Services Analysis to Determine if a [SERC] is Required,” all of which are similar or identical in content, and none of which bear a date, is that, prior to the LCRA, Respondent did not prepare a SERC for proposed rule 69L- 31.016; it prepared a document by which it determined that no SERC was required. After the LCRA was filed, Respondent added a reference to the LCRA, but otherwise did not change the content of its non-SERC. In the Notice of Correction, the Division stated: “The [SERC] for each of the above-referenced proposed rules is available by accessing the Department’s website at http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/WC/noticesRules.htm.” The document titled “Department of Financial Services Analysis to Determine if Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs Is Required,” referred to by the Division as the SERC, was not available on the DFS website on May 2, 2017, as the Notice of Correction indicated. Instead, it was available at the referenced website location on or after May 3, 2017. Upon request by counsel for Parallon on May 3, 2017, the document referred to as a SERC was also provided to Parallon. Mr. Sabolic testified that the document referred to as the SERC was actually available at the Division on May 2, 2017, and would have been made available to someone if it was requested on that day. However, the noticed means by which the document would be “made available” was at a specific website location that was not functional until May 3, 2017. The so-called SERC document for proposed rule 69L- 31.016 suffers from several obvious deficiencies. As to the Division’s “economic analysis,” the document states: “N/A.” That is because the Division did no economic analysis.9/ In response to two separate prompts, for the Division to set forth a “good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to comply with the rule,” and separately, to give a “general description of the types of individuals likely to be affected by the rule,” the Division gave the identical response: “This Rule changes how the Medical Services Section review Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Disputes. Only the Medical Services Section will be required to comply.” In addition, the document indicates (with no explanation or analysis) that there will be no transactional costs to persons required to comply with the new rule, and no adverse impact at all on small businesses. In contrast to the so-called SERC document indicating that only the medical services section will be required to comply with, or be impacted by, the proposed rule, in the Division’s 2013 legislative proposal seeking to remove its statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes involving contracts, the Division was able to identify persons who would be affected by the proposal, acknowledging as follows: “Workers’ compensation carriers, including self- insurers (DFS Div. of Risk Mgmt), third party administrators, and health care providers, including facilities, are affected.” And, of course, the Division was well aware by May 2017 of the variety of providers and carriers expressing their interests and concerns during the rule development that had been ongoing for 17 months by then. To say that the Division gave the SERC task short shrift would be generous. The Division did not take this task seriously. The so-called SERC document also identified the Parallon LCRA. In response to the requirement to describe the LCRA and provide either a statement adopting it or a statement “of the reasons for rejecting the alternative in favor of the proposed rule,” the Division stated: Parallon’s lower cost regulatory alternative consisted of a cost-based argument against the adoption of the proposed rule on the basis that the existing rule provides a lower cost alternative. The Division rejected the regulatory alternative and intends to move forward with adoption on the proposed rule, but will revise the proposed rule to read as follows[.] Jt. Ex. 12, at bates-stamp p. 48. The reference to a revision to the proposed rule does not belong in the statement of reasons for rejecting the LCRA. Its placement there was misleading, as if the revision to the proposed rule helped to explain why the Division rejected the LCRA. But no revision was made to the rule to which the LCRA was directed--proposed rule 69L-31.016(1). The revision was to proposed rule 69L- 31.016(2), not addressed by the LCRA. At hearing, Mr. Sabolic attempted to provide the statement of reasons for rejecting the LCRA, missing in the so- called SERC document. He said that the cost-based argument was considered speculative and lacked data (but that explanation was not in the so-called SERC document). Although he thought that the SERC document stated that the LCRA was rejected because it was based on a “faulty” cost-based argument, the word “faulty” was not in the SERC. On its face, the SERC offers no reason why the “cost-based argument” was rejected— just that it was rejected. The amendment to proposed rule 69L-31.016(2) mentioned in the SERC document was also published on May 2, 2017, in a Notice of Change. The change was shown as follows: When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only address line items not related to indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., should compensability or medical necessity be later established. If the petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating the carrier authorized the treatment, the Department will issue a finding of improper disallowance or adjustment. The Notice of Change did not change either of the other challenged provisions—proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) and the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d). The Notice of Change deleted the prior citation to section 440.13(12)(a) as one of the laws implemented by proposed rule 69L-31.016, leaving only sections 440.13(7) and 440.134(15) as the laws implemented. Division’s Justifications for the Challenged Proposed Rules Mr. Sabolic was Respondent’s hearing representative and sole witness to explain and support the challenged rules. Mr. Sabolic testified that when a contract dictates the reimbursement amount, the Division does not believe it has statutory authority to interpret or enforce contract terms. Yet he acknowledged that the Division’s reimbursement determinations were required to be based on policies set forth in chapter 440, and that the Division was required to apply its reimbursement manuals that are promulgated as rules. Both chapter 440 and the reimbursement manuals expressly require reimbursement at the agreed-upon contract price, as detailed above. The Division recognized this for a decade, during which it applied chapter 440 and its reimbursement manuals to determine the agreed-upon contract price, resolve reimbursement disputes, and order carriers to pay the amount required by their contracts. The Division’s rationale stands in stark contrast to the Division’s 2013 request for a legislative amendment to remove its statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes when reimbursement is dictated by contracts. The Division’s request constitutes an admission that it believes it has the statutory authority it now says it lacks. Apart from statutory authority, Mr. Sabolic indicated that in the decade during which the Division did resolve reimbursement disputes involving contracts, it was sometimes difficult to determine whether there was a contract in effect between the parties. There was a variety of contracts, and sometimes they were complex. With regard to managed care arrangements, Mr. Sabolic said that, similar to contracts, the Division does not think it has the power to interpret or enforce managed care arrangements, because that power lies within AHCA under section 440.134. He said that section 440.134(15) was cited as a law implemented by proposed rule 69L-31.016 because the statute addresses grievance or complaint procedures under a managed care arrangement. Intervenors Summit Companies attempted to prove that providers are required to resolve reimbursement disputes involving workers’ compensation managed care arrangements by using the grievance process described in section 440.134(15). The evidence failed to support that contention. The evidence showed that the grievance form used by the Summit Companies’ managed care arrangement, approved by AHCA, describes the grievance process as encompassing “dissatisfaction with medical care issues provided by or on behalf of a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement.” Tr. 323. As confirmed by the definitions of “complaint” and “grievance” in the workers’ compensation managed care law, the grievance process is used to resolve an injured worker’s dissatisfaction with an insurer’s managed care arrangement, including a refusal to provide medical care or the care provided. See § 440.134(1)(b) and (d), Fla. Stat. Although under AHCA’s rules and the Summit Companies’ form, providers may initiate the grievance process, they would be doing so essentially on behalf of the injured worker or in tandem with the injured worker to resolve the injured worker’s dissatisfaction with medical care issues. When the issue is the insurer’s refusal to provide medical care, the grievance process is an administrative remedy for the injured worker that has to be exhausted before an injured worker can file a petition for benefits pursuant to section 440.192. Not surprisingly, providers have not attempted to file grievances to raise reimbursement disputes with insurers, as nothing in section 440.134(15), the rules, or the Summit Companies’ approved form contemplate use of the process for that purpose, much less mandate it. Strangely, Mr. Sabolic attempted to justify the proposed rule’s carve-outs from the reimbursement dispute process by reference to section 440.13(11)(c), which gives the Department “exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement[.]” As he put it: I think that the statute indicates we can decide any matter relating to reimbursement under 440.13(11)(c), and that’s how we’re deciding to deal with those situations when a managed care arrangement or a contract is involved. That’s our decision. Our decision is that that determination’s going to reflect the amount that is in the applicable reimbursement manual for that service date. Tr. 232. It must be noted that section 440.13(11)(c) was not cited as one of the laws implemented by the proposed rules, even if the premise could be accepted that a grant of exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matter concerning reimbursement includes authority to decide never to decide certain matters concerning reimbursement. Mr. Sabolic admitted that under proposed rule 69L-31.016(1), the Division does not and will not issue a written determination of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment when a contract or managed care arrangement is involved. Mr. Sabolic testified that the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d) (requiring a copy of the contract or managed care arrangement addressing reimbursement) is tied to proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) that gets the Division out of the business of looking at contracts. The Division will not require any proof that a contract or managed care arrangement governs reimbursement so as to trigger the no-decision decision. Instead, if either a provider indicates in its petition or a carrier indicates in its response that reimbursement is pursuant to a contract or managed care arrangement, that ends the inquiry, and the Division will not determine whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment. Mr. Sabolic said that he was not concerned with the potential for abuse, because in the decade when the Division was in the business of interpreting and applying reimbursement provisions in contracts, it was very rare that the parties disagreed on whether a contract was in effect between them that governed reimbursement. Mr. Sabolic offered no justification for carving out from reimbursement disputes carrier adjustments or disallowances of payment based on compensability or medical necessity issues. He just reported the Division’s decision that if a carrier disallows or adjusts payment for line items on bills and cites reasons (EOBR codes) involving compensability or medical necessity, “we will indicate that we’re not going to issue a determination on those line items and [we will] only issue a determination on those line items which don’t reflect the carrier’s disallowance related to compensability or medical necessity.” But if the petitioner gives “proof that the carrier authorized treatment,” the Division “will proceed with rendering a determination related to those line items.” Tr. 197. The Division’s determinations under proposed rules 69L-31.016(1) (when a contract or managed care arrangement is alleged) and 69L-31.016(2) (when payment is disallowed or adjusted for compensability or medical necessity reasons) are characterized by the Division as “neutral determinations” in which there is no winner and no loser. A more fitting characterization is “non-determination.”
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a health insurance agent should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael Halloran, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a health insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Life Insurance Company (NSLIC) and Transport Life Insurance Company (TLIC). He was also under contract with Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida until that firm terminated his agency appointment on May 5, 1989. This proceeding involves the sale by respondent of various health insurance policies to four customers in January and February 1989. In 1987, Raymond H. Koester, a Largo resident, purchased from respondent a supplemental Medicare policy for both him and his wife. Their first policy was issued by American Integrity. A year later, respondent persuaded the Koesters to replace that policy with one issued by Garden State Insurance Company on the ground the latter policy represented an "improvement" over their existing policy. On January 10, 1989 respondent met with the Koesters for the purpose of selling them new health insurance coverage. During their meeting, respondent advised the Koesters that a new NSLIC policy would provide unlimited custodial and home health care, a type of coverage desired by the Koesters. Relying upon respondent's representation, the Koesters agreed to purchase two new policies. They filled out an application and paid Halloran $2,628 which was the premium for the first year. When the application was completed, respondent answered "no" to the question of whether the new policies were intended to replace existing coverage. This was a false representation. In June 1989 the Koesters learned that they had a problem with their new policies. This advice was conveyed to them by petitioner's investigator who advised them that the policies sold by Halloran loran did not provide any custodial or home health care benefits. Had the Koesters known this, they would not have purchased the insurance. On January 18, 1989 respondent visited Grace Miller, an elderly resident of Venice, Florida, for the purpose of selling her a health insurance policy. At that time Miller had an existing policy in force since 1983 which provided supplemental Medicare coverage. Respondent advised Miller that her existing coverage was inadequate and that more coverage was needed. More specifically, Halloran represented that a new NSLIC policy would supplement her basic Medicare coverage and increase her overall health insurance coverage. Based on that representation, Miller agreed to purchase a replacement policy issued by NSLIC. As it turned out, the policy sold to Miller was of little or no value to a Medicare recipient, such as Miller, and simply filled in the gaps on a major medical policy. Had Miller known this to begin with, she would not have purchased the policy. Respondent also persuaded Miller to purchase a long-term care policy from TLIC. She allowed respondent to fill out the application using information from her old policy. Without telling Miller, respondent misrepresented on the application her date of birth as December 2, 1921 when in fact she was born on December 2, 1911, or ten years earlier. By doing this, Halloran was able to reduce Miller's premium from $1,159.92 to $441.72. Had Miller known that she was responsible for paying a much higher premium, she would not have purchased the policy. On February 25, 1989 respondent accepted another check from Miller in the amount of $773.00 for an unknown reason. At about the same time, respondent submitted to NSLIC an application for a medical-surgical expense policy dated the same date purportedly executed by Miller In fact, Miller had not executed the policy and her signature was forged. NSLIC declined to issue a new policy to Miller since she already had a policy of that type in effect. On January 20, 1989 respondent visited Gertrude Simms, an elderly resident of Fort Myers. Simms desired to purchase a hospital expense insurance policy with a provision for dental insurance coverage. Simms desired such coverage because she had a medical condition that required her to have her teeth cleaned frequently to avoid an infection. Respondent was aware of this condition. Nonetheless, Halloran prepared an application with NSLIC for a limited medical-surgical expense insurance policy which did not provide any dental coverage. Respondent accepted a $1,100 check from Simms which he represented to her was the first year's premium. In fact, the first year's premium was only $506. Although respondent was supposed to return to Simms' home to explain the policy provisions, he never returned. At about this same time, TLIC received an application on behalf of Simms for a long-term care insurance policy bearing the signature of respondent as agent. However, Simms had no knowledge of the application and did not wish to purchase such a policy. The information contained in the TLIC application misrepresented Simms' age so that the premium was lower than it should have been. Although TLIC issued a policy and sent it to respondent, Halloran never delivered it to Simms. On February 1, 1989 respondent visited Velma Sonderman, who resided in Venice, Florida, for the purpose of selling her a health insurance policy. She had become acquainted with respondent through Grace Miller, who is referred to in finding of fact 4. Sonderman was then covered by a supplemental medicare insurance policy issued by United American Medicare. According to Sonderman, respondent gave a "snow job" and represented he could sell her better coverage through NSLIC. Sonderman agreed to purchase a new policy for supplemental medicare coverage to replace her existing policy and signed an application filled in by respondent. However, the application submitted by respondent was for a NSLIC limited benefit health insurance policy rather than the medicare supplement insurance policy Sonderman believed she was purchasing. Respondent also convinced Sonderman to purchase a long-term nursing home care policy issued by TLIC. When filling out the application on her behalf, but without telling Sonderman, respondent misrepresented Sonderman's birth date as July 11, 1915 instead of the correct date of July 11, 1911. By doing this, Sonderman's premium was reduced from $999.36 to $599.04 per year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's license as a health insurance agent be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 4 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-3. Substantially used in finding of fact 1. 4-17. Substantially used in findings of fact 4, 5 and 6. 18-29. Substantially used in findings of fact 9 and 10. 30-33. Substantially used in findings of fact 2 and 3. 34-45. Substantially used in findings of fact 7 and 8. 46. Substantially adopted in finding of fact l. Copies furnished to: Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart, Jr., Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Michael Halloran 2519 McMullen Booth Road Clearwater, FL 34621 Donald A. Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner timely filed his request for claim form requesting reimbursement for certain covered expenses under the Florida Flexible Benefits Program--Reimbursement Plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of the faculty of the University of South Florida. He participates in the Florida Flexible Benefits Program--Reimbursement Program (Program). The Plan allows participants to pay certain eligible medical or dependent day care expenses with pretax earnings. Each year, during an open enrollment period, an employee may elect to participate in the Program and select an amount of salary to be deducted from his or her pay. The amount of salary so deducted is not subject to federal income tax, but is available to reimburse the employee for covered expenses. In order for the Program to continue to enjoy preferential treatment under the federal income tax law, Respondent, which administers the Program, must adhere to certain rules. Most relevant to this case is that that the deducted salary must be at risk. Specifically, an employee is not entitled to a refund of all or part of the deduction if he or she does not timely submit sufficient reimbursable expenses to exhaust his or her account. The Program brochure clearly warns participants of this "use it or lose it" rule. The plan year for the Program is the calendar year. In 1997, Petitioner was a participant in the Program. He and his wife chose not to submit claims for covered expenses, as they paid them during the year. Instead, they accumulated the receipts with the intent of submitting a single claim for their account balance at the end of the plan year. The Program sets a claims filing deadline of April 15 for filing claims arising out of the expenses paid in the preceding calendar year. The Program brochure warns that this deadline means all claims for expenses incurred during a plan year must be postmarked by midnight, April 15 of the following year to be considered for processing. Any claims received after this date will be returned to the participant unprocessed, regardless of the account balances. Participants should file claims as soon as the required documentation is obtained. This case involves only one issue: whether Petitioner timely submitted his claims for reimbursement under the Program. There is no issue concerning Petitioner's payment of these expenses or his account balance. There is no issue whether these expenses are eligible for reimbursement. In early March 1998, Petitioner and his wife collected their receipts for covered expenses from 1997. Petitioner completed a reimbursement form and addressed the envelope to Respondent at the correct address. Wanting to make copies of the materials, Petitioner did not immediately mail the package to Respondent. A few days later, prior to copying the materials or mailing the package, Petitioner's father became ill in the Mideast, where he lives. Petitioner and his wife agreed that she would copy the materials and mail the package to Respondent. On March 21, which marks the birthday of Petitioner's wife and a cultural holiday for Petitioner and his wife, Petitioner's wife telephoned her husband, who was still visiting his sick father. In the ensuing discussion, Petitioner learned that she had not yet mailed the package. They discussed the matter and again agreed that she would copy the materials and mail the package without further delay. Without further delay, Petitioner's wife copied the materials and mailed the package to Respondent at the correct address. She placed the package with sufficient postage in a mailbox across from her home. The package consisted of a claims reimbursement form and receipts for eligible expenses. It appears that she may have written an old return address on the envelope. Respondent never received the package. Respondent's procedures are carefully designed and executed to ensure that it will not lose a claim form. Repeated searches for the missing form never uncovered it. The package was lost after its mailing by Petitioner's wife and prior to its delivery to Respondent. Possibly, the incorrect address precluded notification to Petitioner of problems with delivery. Possibly, the package was just lost. Unfortunately, Petitioner learned only after the April 15 deadline that Respondent had never received the package.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order determining that Petitioner timely submitted the claim and eligible expenses that were the subject of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Mohsen M. Milani 15927 Ellsworth Drive Tampa, Florida 33647 Julia Forrester Assistant General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Administration, enter a final order denying coverage for the orthodontia recommended for Sandra Walsh. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1988.
