The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Kellie Brown, on behalf of her minor son, Brandon Brown, is entitled to payment of the Health Insurance Subsidy on the retirement account of Corporal Arthur "Donnie" Brown, deceased, for the period of February 1, 1994, through and including September 1996.
Findings Of Fact Kellie M. Brown (Petitioner) is the natural mother and guardian of Brandon D. Brown, a minor child, whose deceased father was Donnie Brown. At the relevant times, Donnie Brown was employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) as a deputy with the rank of Corporal, and was a compulsory member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). On or about January 16, 1994, Cpl. Brown disappeared from public view and did not report for duty with the Sheriff's office. His last day of work was listed as January 15, 1994. He was subsequently terminated from his position for failure to report for duty. His body was later found on March 15, 1994, and after examination by the county medical examiner, it was determined that his date of death was January 15, 1994. Based on this determination, survivorship benefits became available to Brandon Brown as if his father had died while still employed with the sheriff's office. The Petitioner is the former spouse of the deceased. After the discovery of the body, the Sheriff's office offered to assist Petitioner in the completion and transmission of the necessary paperwork to obtain available benefits. The Sheriff's Office enrolled Brandon under its health insurance plan for one year at no cost to the Petitioner. In March 1994, Petitioner visited the personnel office of the Sheriff's Office. She was given many forms and applications to sign in order to obtain benefits for her son. Petitioner testified that one of the forms in the packet of material was the Health Insurance Subsidy (HIS) application form of the Respondent. She claimed it was given to her in a manila folder by Barbara Hill, a personnel specialist with the Sheriff's Office. Petitioner later had another conversation with Ms. Hill in which the Petitioner wanted to know where the completed form was and insisted that the HIS form was in the material given to her by Ms. Hill. Petitioner then stated that Ms. Hill called the offices of the Respondent in Tallahassee and was told that her son was not eligible for the HIS payment. Thereafter, Petitioner stated that she did not pursue the issue. On behalf of her minor son, the Petitioner applied for and began receiving a FRS retirement benefit on the account of Cpl. Brown, effective July 1994 and retroactive to February 1994. After Brandon's name was added to the retired payroll, in July 1994, Petitioner was notified by mail from the Respondent that Brandon was also eligible for payment of a HIS, which is a benefit separate from the retirement benefit that is paid to retirees and their beneficiaries to help offset the cost of health insurance. Petitioner did not return the HIS application form. Notification of new retirees after their name has been added to the retired payroll about their eligibility for the HIS is the normal and customary practice of Respondent. The HIS application form of Respondent is not given to the employing agency. Therefore, the Sheriff's office would not have a copy of the form to give to Petitioner. Instead, the HIS form is sent by the Respondent directly to the retired member or the beneficiary after the actual retirement. The form is sent out at the same time or shortly after the notice to the retiree that he or she has been placed on the retired payroll. Brandon Brown was added to the retired payroll in July 1994, retroactive to February 1994, and the notification letter form was sent to Petitioner in July 1994. The HIS form would have been sent at that time or shortly thereafter. In early 1997, Barbara Hill reviewed the roll of retirees because of a reengineering program instituted by the Sheriff's office. She found three widows who were not being paid the HIS benefits by Respondent, including Petitioner. She contacted all three women at the request of the Sheriff's office. Respondent sent information about the program to the women. As the result of conversations between Petitioner and Barbara Hill of the Sheriff's office, Petitioner was sent an HIS application form by Respondent, which she completed and returned to the Division on April 23, 1997. Brandon was added to the HIS payroll retroactive to October 1996. The amount of the benefit is $51.99 per month. The Sheriff's office has a health insurance subsidy program for its retired members that is similar to the FRS HIS program and is the same dollar amount as the HIS benefit paid by FRS. However, it is paid only to members and not to beneficiaries so that a beneficiary like Brandon would receive the FRS HIS payment but would not receive the Sheriff's Office HIS payment. The Respondent makes regular efforts to notify retirees of the various benefits offered to them under FRS. As it applies to this case, the Respondent issues a pamphlet entitled "After You Retire" on a periodic and ongoing basis. The then current edition was issued in October 1993, and provided on page 7, information about the HIS. The pamphlet stated as follows: The health insurance subsidy (HIS) is a monthly supplemental payment that you may be eligible to receive if you have health insurance coverage. This monthly payment, which you must apply for, is figured by multiplying your total years of creditable service at retirement (up to a maximum of 30 years) by $3. The minimum monthly subsidy is $30 and the maximum is $90. After your name is added to the retired payroll, an application for the health insurance subsidy, Form HIS-1, will be mailed to you. The completed application must be returned to the Division of Retirement within six (6) months of the date your retirement benefits commenced if you wish to receive the subsidy retroactive to your retirement date. If you fail to return the form within six (6) months, retroactive subsidy payments will be limited to a maximum of six (6) months. It is your responsibility to obtain certification of health insurance coverage and apply for the health insurance subsidy. (emphasis in quoted material) The Respondent also issued a "Retiree Newsletter" in December 1994, and informed all retirees about updates to the HIS program. On page 3, the Newsletter stated: The Health Insurance Subsidy (HIS) is an extra payment that is added to your monthly retirement benefit to help you pay the cost of health insurance. To be eligible for receive the HIS payment, retirees must have health insurance, Medicare or Champus. The subsidy payment which you must apply for, is $3 per month for each year of creditable service you had earned at retirement. The minimum monthly subsidy is $30 and the maximum is $90. If you believe you are eligible for the subsidy but are not currently receiving it, you should call or write the Disbursement Section and request Form HIS-1, Health Insurance Subsidy Certification. If you apply for the HIS after you retire, you will receive retroactive HIS payments limited to a maximum of six months, or the number of months you have been retired, if less than six months. (emphasis in quoted material) Petitioner was mistaken in her belief that the application form for FRS HIS benefits was provided to her by the Sheriff's Office in March 1994.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Division of Retirement determining that the Petitioner, Kellie Brown, is not entitled to the payment of the Health Insurance Subsidy for her minor son on the retirement account of Corporal Arthur "Donnie" Brown, deceased, for the period of February 1, 1994, through and including September 1996. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kellie M. Brown, pro se 12868 Downstream Circle Orlando, Florida 32828 Stanley M. Danek, Senior Attorney Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire Thomas J. Pilacek & Associates 601 South Lake Destiny Road Maitland, Florida 32751 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
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 This issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is responsible for payment of certain state employee health insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Ms. Phyllis McCluskey-Titus became employed at Florida State University ("FSU"). She and her husband, John, moved to Tallahassee from outside Florida, so that she could accept her employment. At the time Ms. McCluskey-Titus became employed, Mr. Titus had not yet accepted employment. She appropriately enrolled in the state health insurance plan. Mr. Titus was listed as, and had coverage as, a dependent on her family coverage. In August, 1986, Mr. Titus accepted employment at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center ("TMRMC"). Although TMRMC offered an employee health insurance benefit, Mr. Titus retained his coverage on his wife's plan, because the couple believed the state plan's benefits to be more beneficial. Enrollment in the state health insurance plan requires the payment of premiums. Such premiums are generally paid through joint contributions, by the employee (through payroll deduction) and by the state. However, where spouses are both state employees, and one spouse is listed as an eligible dependent on the other spouse's family coverage, the state makes the full health insurance premium contribution (the "spouse plan"). In August, 1988, Mr. Titus became employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"). Both FSU (Ms. McCluskey-Titus's employer) and DHRS are state agencies. Therefore, upon Mr. Titus' employment at DHRS, the couple became eligible for the spouse plan. On August 24, 1988, Ms. McCluskey-Titus went to her personnel office and completed the necessary forms to qualify for the spouse plan. At the time of his employment, Mr. Titus received a package of materials from DHRS. Included in the materials was a five page document entitled "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INFORMATION PACKAGE". The document outlines various insurance benefits and lists premiums related to coverages. On the first page of the information document, under the heading "PREMIUMS (full-time employees)" is the following statement: "If you and your spouse are both employed with State Agencies, please contact the Personnel office for information on the Spouse Program. If you are eligible, the State will pay up to 100% of your premium". Believing that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient, Mr. Titus did not contact his personnel office for information. On the third page of the information document, is a form which was to be completed and returned to the DHRS personnel office. Contained on the form is the following statement: "If your spouse is employed with a State Agency in a Career Service position, please contact the Personnel office to request an application for the Spouse Program". Ms. McCluskey-Titus was not employed in a Career Service position. Mr. Titus believed that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient. He did not obtain or submit an application for the program. Neither form provided to Mr. Titus stated that both spouses were required to submit separate documentation. There is no evidence that either Mr. or Ms. Titus were informed, by either employer or the Respondent, that the failure to complete separate documentation would preclude enrollment in the spouse program and could result in an assessment of unpaid premiums. After Ms. McCluskey-Titus submitted the form to the FSU personnel office, the state discontinued deducting her contribution to the health insurance premium from her check. The couple believed that, since no premium deduction was being withheld, the spouse plan enrollment had been completed. In February, 1989, Mr. Titus was informed that, because he had not completed the appropriate form at the DHRS office, the couple was ineligible for the spouse plan. The Respondent requires that both spouses complete separate documentation in order to enroll in the spouse plan. He completed the form and by March 1, 1989, their coverage in the spouse plan became effective. The Respondent is now attempting to assess Ms. McCluskey-Titus for the $83.46 monthly family coverage premiums which were not deducted from her pay during the five month period preceding Mr. Titus' completion of the appropriate form. The total amount claimed by Respondent is $417.30. The evidence indicates that, but for Mr. Titus' failure to complete and submit the form, the couple would have been entitled to participate in the spouse plan and no premium contribution would be owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing the assessment against the Petitioner for additional insurance premiums in the total amount of $417.30. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4943 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified, except for last sentence, rejected, argument, not appropriate finding of fact. Statement that prescription drug claims were covered is rejected, not supported by evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Nature of communication between the respective personnel offices, rejected, not supported by evidence. Respondent Accepted. Rejected, not supported by evidence. 3-4. Accepted as modified. However, requirement that both spouses must submit forms, not supported by evidence. Accepted as to amount, rejected as to indicating that Petitioner was responsible for payment, not supported by evidence. Rejected. Paragraph 2E(2) of the Petition does not state that Mr. Titus failed to read the document, but states only that he took no action. Rejected, not supported by evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis McCluskey-Titus 2353 Skyland Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund from the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan of pre-tax supplemental insurance premiums in the amount of $47.46 or $47.45 a month that were deducted from his pay for the 2007 and 2008 insurance plan years.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Detrick Murray ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Murray") was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, employed by the Florida Department of Corrections. As a state employee, he was given the option to participate in a pre-tax supplemental accident/disability insurance plan. Benefits, including insurance plans, are administered by a private contractor, Convergys, through a project called "People First," operated on behalf of Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance ("Respondent or the Division"). During the 2005 open enrollment period for the 2006 plan year, Mr. Murray elected to participate in a state- sponsored supplemental/accidental policy offered by Colonial Insurance Company ("Colonial"). The reverse side of the enrollment provided the following information and instructions: The enrollment form must be used to enroll in or change coverages. No changes will be accepted by e-mail or letter. Enrolling in a supplemental insurance plan, or changing options, does not automatically stop other coverages you currently have. To stop an existing coverage, you must place an "S" in the box provided for that Plan on the front of this form (Part 1). Only complete Part 2 on the front of this form if you wish to stop plans currently not offered. The Supplemental Enrollment Form must be submitted to the People First Service Center. Enrollment changes will not occur if forms and/or applications and the Supplemental Company Application are submitted directly to the supplemental insurance company. If you cancel or do not enroll in supplemental insurance, you will not be able to enroll again until the next annual open enrollment period, unless you experience a Qualifying Status Change. Supplemental premiums are deducted on a pre- tax basis. It is your responsibility to ensure that your enrollment selections are in effect. Check your payroll warrants to ensure that your deductions properly reflect your selections. Contact the People First Service Center immediately if these deductions are not correct. I understand my enrollment and/or changes will be effective the first of the month following a full payroll deduction. I also understand my elections are IRREVOCABLE until the next annual open enrollment period, unless I have a Qualifying Status Change as defined by the Federal Internal Revenue Code and/or the Florida Administrative Code. I understand that I must request such changes within thirty-one (31) calendar days of the Qualifying Status Change. The open enrollment period for the next year, the 2007 plan year, began on September 19, 2006, and ended on October 18, 2006. On October 14, 2006, Mr. Murray notified Colonial that he wanted to cancel the supplemental insurance for the 2007 plan year. He used a Colonial Request for Services form and sent it to the Colonial Processing Center in Columbia, South Carolina. In a letter dated February 14, 2007, Colonial acknowledged receiving Mr. Murray's request to cancel the insurance during the 2006 enrollment period, and informed him of its receipt of an "overpayment" of $47.46 monthly beginning January 1, 2007. Colonial directed Mr. Murray to contact his personnel officer "which will then work through the Division to issue your refund." After the open enrollment period ended, Mr. Murray had also contacted People First on November 14, 2006, and gave notice of his attempt to cancel with Colonial. He was informed that Colonial had not informed People First of the cancellation. Mr. Murray contacted People First again on January 29, 2007, questioning the continued payroll deductions and requesting a refund, as Colonial had suggested. He was told that he would have to cancel with People First during the open enrollment period, but he could send a letter of appeal to try to get a refund of premiums and try to cancel sooner. Despite repeated contacts, requests for refunds, and appeals to People First during 2007, Mr. Murray continued to have premiums for supplemental insurance deducted from his pay check. Ultimately, the Division denied his appeal. Although Mr. Murray was trying to get a refund for 2007 payroll deductions, he again failed to notify People First to cancel the insurance during the open enrollment period between September 17, 2007, and October 19, 2007, for the 2008 plan year. There is no evidence that Mr. Murray had a qualifying status change, as required by federal and state law, that would have permitted him to cancel the insurance at any time other than during open enrollment periods for the 2007 and 2008 plan years. The enrollment period for the 2009 plan year began on September 22, 2008, and ended on October 17, 2008. On September 24, 2008, Mr. Murray cancelled the supplemental insurance for the 2009 plan year by making a telephone call to a People First representative. In a late-filed exhibit produced by a manager for Convergys at the request of Petitioner, the Division showed that payments were made to Colonial to insure Mr. Murray through November 24, 2008. Sandi Wade, the Division's benefits administrator, noted that Colonial should not have canceled Mr. Murray's insurance policy. Colonial had no authority to send the letter of February 14, 2007, incorrectly telling Mr. Murray he was entitled to a refund. Ms. Wade's observations prompted Mr. Murray to question what, if any, remedies he might have with regard to Colonial's error. That issue is not and cannot be considered in this proceeding. In the absence of evidence that the Division or its agents were notified to cancel the supplemental insurance during open enrollment periods for 2007 and 2008, or based on a qualifying status change, Petitioner's request for a refund of premiums must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurnace, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Detrick Murray, a refund of his accident/disability insurance coverage premiums paid in 2007 and 2008. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Detrick Murray 4370 Northwest 187th Street Miami, Florida 33055 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of State Group Insurance Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact National Benefit is a foreign corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, organized for profit, and doing business in several states, including the State of Florida. National Benefit is authorized to write insurance in the State of Florida. Insurance Marketing Corporation (INC) operates as the marketing arm for Associated Direct Marketing Services (ADMS), which in turn is an affiliate of National Benefit and functions as the marketing company for National Benefit. INC prepares all of National Benefit's direct response marketing, including the advertisement at issue in this case. National Benefit is fully responsible for advertisements prepared by INC. National Benefit has advertised and is currently advertising insurance products, through the television medium, which are received by residents of the State of Florida. One such product is known as "Security Life TM." The television advertising at issue in this case is referred to as IMC- 103 and is a television commercial featuring Dick Van Dyke as the compensated spokesperson. Van Dyke states: "that National Benefit Life has found a way for you to get the protection you need . . . at a price you really can afford. Just $3.95 a month . . . ." At this point in the advertisement, superimposed on the screen are the words: "$3.95 a month (per unit)" At no time during this advertisement is there either an explanation of the use of units in which a common premium is specified or a description of varying benefit amounts according to age. During the advertisement, Van Dyke states that a forty-five (45) year old male consumer can obtain forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) of coverage for just sixty-five cents ($.65) a day. However, the implication is that such coverage can be obtained for a monthly premium of three dollars and ninety-five cents ($3.95) because this figure is prominently displayed twice on the screen and Van Dyke mentions this figure twice within a 120-second period. In reality, the consumer must purchase five (5) units of insurance at a monthly premium of nineteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($19.75) to be eligible for the forty thousand dollars ($40,000) benefit advertised. At the advertised premium of three dollars and ninety-five cents ($3.95)(one unit) per month, a forty-five (45) year old male consumer would receive benefits of only six hundred ($600.00) in Term Life benefits if he dies a natural death at age seventy (70) while having paid in seven hundred eleven dollars ($711.00). A forty-five year old consumer purchasing five (5) units would obtain a forty thousand dollar ($40,000.00) benefit only if the consumer's death was caused by a covered accidental bodily injury and only after the first two years of coverage. The amount of coverage decreases as the policyholder's age increases. Death benefits are limited to premiums paid during the first two (2) years of coverage if death is caused by other than accidental bodily injury. The advertisement contains a 14-word superimposed summary of limitations on benefits which appear on the screen for approximately two (2) seconds. At the same time that the summary of limitations appears on the screen, Van Dyke is discussing something unrelated to the summary of limitations. There is no other explanation of these terms. A person of average education or intelligence cannot be expected to read or comprehend the afore-mentioned summary within the two (2) second period in which the summary appears on the screen. In fact, the undersigned was able to read only the first five words when the advertisment was shown. Van Dyke also states during the afore-mentioned advertisement, "Big Dollar Benefits." Using Van Dyke's example given in the advertisement, i.e., forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) of coverage, a forty-five (45) year old male would have to purchase five (5) units of insurance, keep the policy in force, die before age forty-ninety (49), and die as a result of accidental bodily injury, directly and independently from all other causes, within ninety (90) days of the accident. None of these factors are mentioned in the advertisement. Likewise, a forty-five (45) year old male could purchase five (5) units of insurance, keep the policy in force until his natural death at age sixty (60), and have paid National Benefit a total premium of three thousand five hundred fifty-five dollars ($3,555.00), yet the policy would pay, because of decreasing benefits, a total benefit of only three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). The advertisement indicates "guaranteed acceptance" by superimposition and spoken text without explaining the limitations on benefits in a manner contiguous to and as prominent as the term. Taken as a whole, IMC-103 is deceptive and misleading advertising and has the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive either by fact or implication. After the Notice and Order to Show Cause was received by National Benefit in November, 1987; it continued to run the subject advertisement on local television stations until February, 1988. The advertisement, when cancelled, was cancelled for poor response. National Benefit re-entered the spot market in Florida with this advertisement subsequent to its cancellations. National Benefit continues to show a commercial almost identical to INC-103 available for viewing in Florida by Cable T.V. National Benefit had actual notice of and access to the rules of the Department of Insurance regarding advertising, Chapter 4-35, Florida Administrative Code. National Benefit has a "compliance manual," but does not always follow the requirements set out in that manual. Repeated references to age and health emphasize the aspects of the policy which pay for death by natural causes over death by accident. The advertisement neglects objective information and obfuscates elements of cost. Taken as a whole, there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of a knowing intent to make a distorted presentation and to present less than a full, fair and accurate explanation of the policy through this televised advertisement. The advertisement involves a compensated person and includes identification of various toll-free telephone numbers which Florida residents are encouraged to use in order to receive additional information concerning the advertised insurance product. As a result of receiving a telephone inquiry from Florida residents, National Benefit also solicits its insurance products via U.S. Mail by sending consumers information packets called fulfillment kits containing various written material concerning its advertised product. At the time a consumer views the television advertisement, the consumer does not have the fulfillment kit available. The television advertisement is a separate advertisement and may in itself be deceptive and misleading. The television ad contains an "800" number that viewers can call to receive a fulfillment kit. The fulfillment kit contains an application for insurance. Once consumers receive a fuflment kit, if they wish to purchase insurance, they fill out the application and send it to the company. Because the next item received following the viewing of the T.V. commercial contains an application form, it is possible to purchase the insurance solely on the basis of Van Dyke's representations as to premiums and benefits. The statements of Van Dyke went beyond the parameters authorized in Rule 4-35.008, Florida Administrative Code, and constituted solicitation. Explanation of policy provisions including quotation of premiums and benefits are acts performed by a licensed agent and constitute solicitation. Van Dyke described coverages, benefits and premiums, and in doing so is acting as an insurance agent for National Benefit. Van Dyke is not licensed as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. No action has been brought by the Department against Van Dyke and Van Dyke is not a party to this action. Joe Plante, Vice-President of Direct Response Advertising Compliance for IMC, keeps up with the current rules and regulations of state insurance departments as they occur. In order to carry out this responsibility, Mr. Plante has a set of ACLI manuals relating to group insurance which are updated on a daily basis. He receives updates to the National Law Services Manual, and he attends regular NAIC meetings and ad hoc NAIC meetings, including the Delaware Valley Ad Hoc Committee. NAIC is an acronym for National Association of Insurance Commissioners. It meets three times per year for a day or two days for the purpose of discussing compliance issues. Mr. Plante also determines where advertising can be viewed and aired. In carrying out this responsibility he often requires that advertising materials be modified to comply with state regulations and he has taken advertising to the Florida Department of Insurance to be reviewed prior to use since 1981, even though such a review is not required by the Department. When a company submits an advertisement for review by the Department, if the analysts do not find any apparent violations, their usual procedure is to stamp the advertisement "Filed" and return a copy to the company. The same procedure may or may not be followed after apparent violations noted by the analysts have been corrected by the company. After a company has made all changes in its advertising requested by the Department, the Department's file is closed. Closing the file means that the advertising appears to be in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. A file may be reopened at any time. On November 25, 1986, Plante met with Department personnel regarding a television advertising script identified as IMC-115 and a fulfillment kit which the company planned to mail to viewers responding to the advertisement. Mr. Plante did not supply the Department with a videotape of the ad. The Department personnel took the advertising material to review and agreed to meet with Mr. Plante later that same day to offer their comments. The supervisor of the analyst who reviewed INC-115 told the analyst, in front of Mr. Plante, that he should review the T.V. script and solicitation letter only. The fulfillment kit and videotapes were not reviewed at that time. At the second meeting on November 25, 1986, Department personnel suggested various changes be made to the television advertising material which had been submitted. Mr. Plante returned to his office in Pennsylvania and directed that the changes suggested by the Department be incorporated in the television advertisements, with one exception. The Department's request that the compensated endorser's statement that "no agent will come to your home" be eliminated was not complied with because this would have entailed refilming the advertisements. On January 30, 1987, Mr. Plante submitted a videotape of a television advertisement identified as IMC-103 to the Department with a cover letter indicating that the requested changes had been made. IMC-103 is very similar to IMC-115, but not identical. No script was provided for IMC-103. On February 20, 1987, Department personnel sent a letter to Mr. Plante which states in part: "Once we have resolved this matter, the material appears to be in compliance with Florida advertising rules and regulations." Department personnel had not reviewed the videotape of IMC-103 prior to sending the letter. The television advertising identified as IMC-103 contains the words "Big dollar benefits," which were not contained in the script presented to the Department for review on November 25, 1986, and identified as INC-ll5. The Department closed its file on March 23, 1987. The compliance manual developed in September, 1986, by Mr. Plante for IMC states that Florida prohibits use of the term "No agent will call" and "No medical exam." However, the term "no agent will come to your home" was included in both IMC-115 and IMC-103. The manual contained these admonitions at the time IMC-115 was submitted to the Department for review. IMC began broadcasting IMC-103 in March, 1987, without further changes and spent in excess of $350,000.00 in broadcasting IMC-103 over the next year. In September, 1987, the Department began a review of medicare supplement and life and health insurance advertising. Department personnel were directed to obtain copies of the scripts and videotapes of insurance television advertisements, to review them, and to send the analysts' reviews to the legal office. In conjunction with this departmental review, Plante supplied the materials related to IMC-103. This action is a result of the September, 1987, investigation. Between March, 1987, when the Department closed its file on IMC-103 and November, 1987, when this action was brought, the Department clearly changed its policy regarding what statements by compensated endorsers constitute solicitation and what statements constitute an invitation to inquire. The Department has initiated rulemaking to reflect the Department's current policy in its rules. There is no definition of what constitutes deceptive or misleading advertising in the department's rules. In this case, both parties offered expert testimony of what the appropriate definition is. National benefit's expert, Phillip E. Downs, acknowledged that there are different definitions of deceptive advertising. The definition he supports is that advertising is considered to be deceptive if it includes untruthful claims that create belief levels in individuals that result in some purchase behavior that would result in some harm or damage to the consumer. Essentially, Downs' definition contains three elements: 1) requires that the advertisement contains statements which are untrue, and 2) which are believed by the consumer, 3) resulting in damage to the consumer. This definition is rejected as it does not conform to the statutory framework which recognizes that an advertisement can be either untrue, deceptive or misleading. Additionally, there is no statutory prerequisite involving the need to show damage to the consumer. Instead, the definition used and applied by the Department's expert, Richard W. Mizerski, is accepted and credited and it has been applied herein. That definition requires that the viewer be lead to believe things that are not true and it involved four factors: the probability of deception, the characteristics of the targeted audience, the materiality of the information, and the way the information is presented. An advertisement is deceptive if individuals have the capacity of taking away an understanding this is not based on reality or if they come away with a perception that is not realistic, given what the real situation is. It includes deception by omission. There is no necessity that actual injury occurs, but there must be a possibility of injury.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Laws, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance, through the Insurance Commissioner, enter a Final Order and therein: Find National Benefit Life Insurance Company guilty of violating Sections 626.9521 and 626.9541 and Rules 4-35.004, 4-35.005, and 4-35.006(1)(a) and (f) and (2)(a). Dismiss the charges that National Benefit Life Insurance Company violated Sections 626.051 and 626.112. Impose an administrative penalty of $10,000.00 against National Benefit Life Insurance Company for the above mentioned violations. Find that the compensated spokesperson in IMC-103 does solicit insurance. Order National Benefit Life Insurance Company to cease and desist from using IMC-103 in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5436 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(5); 4-19(4-19); 20(21); 21-39(47-65); 40-43(67-71); 46-51(22-27); 52(8); 53(9); 54(15); 55(20); 57(15); 58-62(28-32); 65 and 66(39); 67(38); 68(41); 69(42); 71(40); and 72-76(33-37) Proposed findings of fact 44, 56, 63, 64, and 70 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 45 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, National Benefit Life Insurance Company Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 and 2); 2(3); 12(31 and 35); 17-19(44-46); 29(63); 30(66); 34(69); and 38(70). Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, and 6-8 are unnecessary. 3. Proposed findings of fact 5, 9-11, 14-16, 22, 26-28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39-46, 48, 49, 53, 55, 58-60, and 62-65 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 4. Proposed findings of fact 13, 33, 51, and 52 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. 5. Proposed findings of fact 20, 21, 23-25, 36, 47, 50, 54, 56, 57, and 61 are irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabriel Mazzeo, Attorney at Law Susan F. Stafford, Attorney at Law Richard W. Thornberg, Attorney at Law Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Douglas A. Mang, Attorney at Law Charles T. Collette, Attorney at Law Edward W. Dougherty, Jr., Attorney at Law P. O. Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen R. Herbert, Attorney at Law 900 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Department's proposed amendment of Rule 38F- 7.020, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of its delegated legislative authority under Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, [1996 Supp.], or whether the authority specified in the proposed rule is sufficient for the Department to adopt the proposed rule?
Findings Of Fact The Florida Society of Anesthesiologists is a voluntary, nonprofit association comprised of individual members, each of whom is licensed in the State of Florida to practice medicine. Petitioner, Robert A. Guskiewicz, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida specializing in anesthesia. Pursuant to Section 440.13(12), Florida Statutes, a three-member panel is charged with the responsibility of determining the schedules of maximum reimbursement for physician treatment of workers' compensation patients. In March 1996, the three-member panel convened and adopted a resource-based relative value scale ("RBRVS") reimbursement system, which, on or about January 3, 1997, the Department published notice of its intent to embody in proposed Rule 38F-7.020, in Vol. 23, No. 1 of the Florida Administrative Law Weekly. A copy is attached and incorporated herein by reference. The proposed Rule lists Sections 440.13(7), 440.13(8), 440.13(11), 440.13(12), 440.13(13), 440.13(14), and 440.591, Florida Statutes, as specific authority. The proposed Rule implements Sections 440.13(6), 440.13(7), 440.13(8), 440.13(11), 440.13(12), 440.13(13), and 440.13(14), Florida Statutes. There are no other facts necessary for determination of the matter.
The Issue The issue is whether a retiree's forfeiture of Florida Retirement System (FRS) benefits authorizes Respondent to seize from unrelated remittals due Petitioner the sum of $18,271.75, which is the amount that Respondent had previously deducted from the retiree's pension benefits and remitted to Petitioner for the payment of the retiree's insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact Employed by Petitioner in April 1974, Garfield Perry participated in the FRS pension plan. On or about October 31, 2009, Mr. Perry terminated his employment and began receiving his monthly FRS pension benefit. Two months earlier, Mr. Perry had entered into an agreement with Petitioner for it to provide post-retirement life insurance for Mr. Perry and medical and dental insurance for Mr. Perry and his wife with all three policies commencing in November 2009. While these policies were in effect, pursuant to an agreement between Petitioner and Respondent that is described below, Respondent remitted to Petitioner a portion of Mr. Perry's FRS pension benefit equal to $17,429.47 for medical and dental premiums and $842.28 for life insurance premiums, for a total of $18,271.75. Petitioner is a self-insurer for medical insurance, so, on receipt of medical insurance premiums, Petitioner pays a portion of the premiums to a third-party administrator for insurance-related services and reserves the remainder for the payment of claims. For dental and life insurance, Petitioner remits the premiums to the respective insurers. On May 7, 2014, Mr. Perry pleaded guilty to one count of bribery and extortion in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, in connection with his employment in Petitioner's Public Works Department. On or about July 29, 2014, the court adjudicated Mr. Perry guilty. By letter dated August 6, 2014, Respondent advised Mr. Perry that, pursuant to article II, section 8(d), of the Florida Constitution, and sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5), Florida Statutes, his FRS benefits were forfeited due to his guilty plea. Mr. Perry requested an administrative hearing on the forfeiture, and Respondent transmitted the file to DOAH, which designated the case as DOAH Case No. 14-4195. On December 31, 2014, Mr. Perry voluntarily dismissed his request for hearing prior to the final hearing, and, on January 9, 2015, Respondent issued a Final Order of Dismissal that finds, among other things, that Mr. Perry committed the criminal offenses "from in or about 2006 through in or about October 2009." The final order formally declares a forfeiture of Mr. Perry's FRS pension benefits, evidently including benefits already paid. Respondent did not provide Petitioner with a copy of the August 6, 2014, letter, the Final Order of Dismissal, or any of the pleadings in DOAH Case No. 14-4195. The present record does not indicate if Petitioner had actual notice of the forfeiture process. However, this case likely represents the first time that Respondent has attempted to recover insurance premiums that it has remitted to an agency or company following the retiree's forfeiture of retirement benefits, and it is unlikely that Petitioner was aware of its potential liability to repay these amounts until April 1, 2016, as described below. This potential liability arguably arises from a Payroll Deduction Agreement entered into by Petitioner and Respondent. The agreement allows a retiree to authorize Respondent to deduct monthly from his pension benefit an amount equal to his insurance premiums and to remit this sum to Petitioner, so that it can pay the retiree's premiums. In this case, Respondent remitted insurance premiums to Petitioner from November 2009 through October 2012 and allocated them in the manner set forth above in paragraph 2. Three and one-half years after the last remittal that included any sums for Mr. Perry's insurance premiums, almost two years after Mr. Perry's guilty plea, and about 15 months after the final order declaring the forfeiture, Respondent withheld $18,271.75 from Respondent's March 2016 consolidated remittal to Petitioner on the account of other retirees in an attempt to recover the remittals that Respondent had made to Petitioner to pay Mr. Perry's insurance premiums. The Payroll Deduction Agreement is a form prepared by Respondent that is signed by the agency or company seeking to receive remittals for its FRS retirees. Under the agreement, which has a signature line only for the agency or company and not Respondent, the agency or company agrees to preserve the confidentiality of the information, assume responsibility for the accuracy of the premium deductions, and notify Respondent timely of the discontinuation of this payroll deduction service. An employee of Petitioner signed the Payroll Deduction Agreement on April 27, 2009. The Payroll Deduction Agreement requires the agency or company to accept the "Procedures for Admitting Insurance Providers for Retired Payroll Deduction." The procedures document states that Respondent offers the convenience of payroll deduction of insurance premiums as a service to FRS pension recipients. Only two paragraphs of this document address post-deduction adjustments: 11. If a retiree's insurance premium is deducted incorrectly for any reason (i.e.-- overpayment of amount, policy cancelled, administrative error, etc.), the Insurance provider company or FRS agency is responsible for refunding the premium amount to the retiree. 13. [1] If a retirement benefit is cancelled by the Division of Retirement, the corresponding insurance premium that was deducted from that same dated payment is recovered from the following month's consolidated insurance payment. Reasons for cancellations include payee deaths, [sic] cancelling retirement. When determining the amount of insurance premiums to be reimbursed to families of deceased members, please note that the Division cannot determine when a death will be reported or when funds will be funds will be returned [sic] from banks (resulting in cancellations). [4] There are occasions when a report of death is received months after a retiree's death. [5] If payments for the deceased are still outstanding, they most likely will be cancelled. A common example follows: Example: Payee dies 1/5/09. Family reports death to the Division on 4/1/09. Retiree was only due payments through the month of January. Since the February and March payments are still outstanding, these paper checks are cancelled by the Division of Retirement. This cancellation action recovers the 2/27/09 and 3/31/09 premium deductions from the 4/30/09 consolidated payment. A credit entry will also appear on the April 2009 report of retiree insurance deductions. Please Note: We recommend that you contact the Division of Retirement to inquire about possible payment cancellations prior to processing premium reimbursements. Paragraph 11 of the Payroll Deduction Agreement requires that an agency or company repay the retiree any excessive premium deduction, so is irrelevant in the case of forfeiture. Paragraph 13 of the Payroll Deduction Agreement applies to the situation in which a premium deduction is unfunded because of the cessation of the pension benefit from which it is deducted. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that the application of paragraph 13 is prospective only, so it would not apply to a retroactive setoff of the type that has occurred in this case. The first sentence identifies the contingency of the cancelation of a retirement benefit and authorizes Respondent to recover its remittal of any premiums deducted from the cancelled pension benefit, but mentions a recovery or setoff only in the month following the cancelation. This establishes the kind of liability that Respondent seeks to impose on Petitioner, but only for the brief period of one month. Obviously, the willingness of an agency or company to assume this minor liability for the convenience of its retirees does not imply a willingness to assume a much larger liability spanning several months or even years of remittals. The second sentence cites two common reasons for cancelation: the death of the retiree and the cancellation of the pension benefit by the retiree. The use of "includes," as well as the insertion of a comma in place of "and" or "or," suggests that these two reasons are illustrative, not exhaustive. Even so, the second sentence does not add the reason of forfeiture, and, at this point in paragraph 13, the details of the parties' agreement concerning a forfeiture has not been explicitly addressed. The third and fourth sentences address only the contingency of the death of the retiree, in which case Respondent recovers unearned premiums that Respondent intends to remit to the estate of the retiree--in most cases, one assumes, indirectly to the families of the deceased member. Typically, insurers are not exposed to the risk of insured losses after the death of a retiree--even a life insurer's exposure ends after the insured's death and payment of the death benefits--so any premiums paid after death are unearned and should be refunded to the proper party. The warning that Respondent may not learn of the retiree's death for many months suggests a longer period may be available for retroactive adjustments, but this warning applies only to the contingency of death, again, where the insurers are obligated to refund unearned premiums. The fifth sentence also addresses only the contingency of the death of a retiree and seems to provide only that Respondent will cancel any pension benefits or premium remittals still outstanding at the time of the retiree's death. The example illustrates a three-month delay in the receipt of notification of a retiree's death followed by the cancellation of the pension benefits issued in the preceding two months, which presumably could not have been lawfully presented for payment by anyone besides the deceased retiree. In this case, Respondent would issue a corresponding credit entry on the next month's report of premium deductions made on account of the retiree. The procedures document thus fails to address the contingency of forfeiture. The provisions applicable to the contingencies of the death of the retiree and the retiree's cancellation of pension benefits are a poor fit for the contingency of forfeiture. Respondent has previously recovered income tax withheld on paid pension benefits following a forfeiture, but the recovery was limited to the period during which an amended personal income tax return could be filed--the effect being that the amount could be effectively recovered in the form of a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service, rather than from an agency or company.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the Petition Requesting an Administrative Hearing filed on August 17, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale 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 8th day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Veronica E. Donnelly, Esquire Offices of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Joni A. Mosely, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128-1993 (eServed) Elizabeth Stevens, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Brevard Management, LLC, (Brevard Management) failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. On July 31, 2008, Eugene Wyatt, an insurance analyst working for the Department, visited the River Palm Motel in Melbourne to investigate the workers' compensation insurance status of several contractors performing renovations on the property. The River Palm Motel is owned by Brevard Management, whose principal owner is Albert Segev. During his visit, Mr. Wyatt spoke to Michael Cole, the hotel's manager, regarding the workers' compensation coverage of the hotel itself. Mr. Cole told Mr. Wyatt that the hotel used Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), a third-party payroll services provider, to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage. Brevard Management began operating the River Palm Motel on June 18, 2008. On June 19, 2008, Brevard Management entered into an agreement with ADP for the provision of payroll services, including the filing of payroll taxes, using Easy Pay, ADP's proprietary payroll management service. On August 25, 2008, Mr. Wyatt received an anonymous referral alleging that the River Palm Motel was not carrying workers' compensation insurance for its employees. Later that day, Mr. Wyatt returned to the River Palm Motel, this time to investigate the workers' compensation status of the motel itself. Upon his arrival at the motel, Mr. Wyatt spoke with Mr. Cole, who disclosed that Brevard Management owned the motel. Mr. Wyatt conducted a search of the Division of Corporation's website and learned that Mr. Segev was the principal owner of Brevard Management. Mr. Cole provided Mr. Wyatt with invoices for the last payroll period for the River Palm Motel. The invoices indicated that the company had more than ten employees, which led Mr. Wyatt to conclude that the company was required to secure workers' compensation insurance. At his deposition, Mr. Cole confirmed that River Palm Motel had between ten and twelve employees on August 25, 2008. Mr. Cole believed that Brevard Management had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage through ADP. However, the payroll invoices that Mr. Cole provided to Mr. Wyatt showed no deductions for any insurance. Mr. Wyatt consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database, which lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for each business as provided by the insurance companies, as well as any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. CCAS indicated that Brevard Management had no workers' compensation insurance policy in place and no current, valid exemptions. Mr. Cole provided Mr. Wyatt with a copy of the June 19, 2008, payroll agreement between Brevard Management and ADP, which gave no indication that workers' compensation insurance was included. The evidence at the hearing established that ADP does not automatically provide workers' compensation insurance coverage to entities that enroll for its payroll services. ADP provides such insurance coverage, but only as part of a separate transaction. After receiving authorization from the acting supervisor in the Department's Orlando office, Mr. Wyatt issued the SWO to Brevard Management on August 25, 2008, and personally served it on Mr. Segev on August 26, 2008. On August 25, 2008, Mr. Wyatt gave Mr. Cole a request to produce business records, for the purpose of making a penalty assessment calculation. In response, Mr. Cole provided an employee roster from ADP showing the payroll entries for every Brevard Management employee from the opening of the motel in June 2008 through August 25, 2008. After Mr. Wyatt's visit, Mr. Cole contacted ADP and spoke to Elizabeth Bowen, a workers' compensation sales agent with ADP Insurance Services. Ms. Bowen faxed forms to Mr. Cole to complete in order to obtain a workers' compensation insurance policy. Mr. Cole completed the paperwork and obtained a workers' compensation insurance policy through NorGUARD Insurance Company, effective August 25, 2008. Mr. Cole testified that he believed in good faith that he had obtained workers' compensation insurance at the time he signed up for payroll services with ADP sales representative Clinton Stanley in June 2008. It was only Mr. Wyatt's investigation that alerted Mr. Cole to the fact that Brevard Management did not have the required coverage. Mr. Stanley recalled that Mr. Cole had requested workers' compensation insurance, recalled telling Mr. Cole that his request had to be routed to ADP's separate insurance division, and recalled having forwarded the request to the insurance division. Mr. Stanley had no explanation for why the insurance division did not follow up with Mr. Cole in June 2008. Because he never heard from Mr. Cole again, he assumed that Brevard Management had obtained the requested workers' compensation coverage. It is accepted that Mr. Cole believed that he had purchased the workers' compensation coverage as part of the ADP payroll services; however, the evidence established that Mr. Cole should reasonably have known that this was not the case. Nothing in the June 2008 contractual documentation with ADP indicated that Brevard Management had obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage, and the subsequent ADP payroll registers showed no deductions for workers' compensation insurance. Using the proprietary Scopes Manual developed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), Mr. Wyatt assigned Brevard Management's employees the occupation classification code 9052, "Hotel: All Other Employees & Sales Persons, Drivers." This was the same code assigned by Ms. Bowen when she completed the policy paperwork for Brevard Management. Ms. Bowen described this classification as "all inclusive" with respect to hotel employees. Mr. Wyatt calculated an amended penalty based on the payroll records provided by Mr. Cole, from the date Brevard Management became an active limited liability company, June 3, 2008, to the date the SWO was issued, August 25, 2008. Mr. Wyatt divided the total payroll by 100, then multiplied that figure by NCCI's approved manual rate for insurance coverage in 2008 for classification code 9052. That product was then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty for the stated period. The total penalty for all employees was $2,112.03. The Amended Order was served on Brevard Management on August 26, 2008, along with the SWO. On August 26, 2008, Mr. Wyatt met with Mr. Cole and Mr. Segev, who produced a copy of the application for workers' compensation insurance placed through NorGUARD Insurance Company and tendered a cashier's check for the full amount of the penalty. The SWO was released on the same day.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $2,112.03 against Brevard Management, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ben Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Albert Segev Brevard Management, LLC, d/b/a River Palm Hotel 420 South Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32901
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Petitioner is entitled to a premium refund of her health insurance premium.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mildred Daw, is a retired State employee. She is enrolled in the State of Florida, State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (the Plan). Prior to retiring, Petitioner amended her coverage in the Plan, changing from single coverage to family coverage. Petitioner modified her coverage so that her husband would be covered under the Plan. Petitioner's husband was under age 65 and qualified for Medicare Parts A and B. Petitioner was not qualified for Medicare coverage. The premium for family coverage was $178.44 per month. Petitioner began paying this amount shortly before she retired in December 1984. By letter dated, July 8, 1985, the Division of State Employees' Insurance notified retirees that: If you are under age 65 and eligible for Medicare Part A and B because of disability, you may now be eligible for Medicare Coordination coverage at the reduced rate. Please notify our office if you are eligible and send a copy of your Medicare card. Your premium will be reduced the month following our receipt of your notice and the copy of your Medicare card. The letter was sent to retirees and made no mention of surviving spouses or that a current spouse, who fit within the Medicare category, could qualify the insured for Medicare Coordination coverage. The Medicare Coordination coverage is the only program that the State offers in which it is the spouse of the insured/retiree who can qualify the insured for new benefits or different coverage. In this case, the different coverage or new benefit was solely a reduction in premium. Otherwise, the benefits under the family coverage and the Medicare Coordination coverage were the same. An ordinary person reading the letter would not have been placed on notice and would not have assumed that anyone other than the retiree was covered by the letter. If Petitioner had immediately elected the Medicare Coordination coverage, her premium would have been reduced by $42.76 a month, beginning with the August 1985, payment. The July 8, 1985, letter was mailed by first class mail to all retired State employees in the Plan. The business practice of the Division is to mail any such letters to the address of the retiree listed with the Division of Retirement and given to the Division of State Employees' Insurance or to the most current address the Division of Employees Insurance has for that particular retiree. In this case, the address which the Division of Retirement would have had on Petitioner in 1985 was her old address in Jacksonville. However, by July 1985, Petitioner had mailed the Division of State Employees' Insurance a change of address card with her new Pensacola address. She did not mail the Division of Retirement a change of address. There is no evidence as to which address the Respondent mailed the July 8, 1985, letter. Without such evidence Respondent is not entitled to a presumption of proper notice when a letter is mailed to a party with the correct address. Petitioner does not remember receiving the July 8, 1985, letter. She would have elected the Medicare Coordination coverage had she been aware of its availability. Petitioner became aware of her eligibility for reduced premiums in October 1987, when she received an informational bulletin from the Division of State Employees' Insurance. The bulletin stated the premium rates for various types of insurance coverage, including the reduced premiums for family coverage with members of the family who are qualified for Medicare benefits. Petitioner telephoned the Division and was instructed by Division personnel to send in a copy of her husband's Medicare card in order to establish her eligibility for the reduced premium. Petitioner sent a copy of her husband's Medicare card to the Division in October 1987. On November 6, 1987, Petitioner requested a refund of excess insurance premiums paid from July 1985, through November 1987. On December 28, 1987, Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the earliest date a change in coverage could become effective was October 1987, because Petitioner had not applied for a change of coverage prior to that time. Petitioner was awarded an excess premium refund for the premium paid for November coverage. The Rules governing the Plan are found in Chapter 22I-1, Florida Administrative Code. This Chapter generally requires that an employee or retiree perform an affirmative act, by completing an informational form and sending it to the Department, before any change in coverage can be effectuated. The reason for such a requirement is that the Department has no way of knowing the number of eligible employees or retirees, without being supplied that information from the insureds, so that the Plan's administrator can better manage the Plan's funds to provide an adequate amount for the payment of claims. However, competing with this Rule is the Respondent's policy that a retiree who is otherwise eligible for certain benefits, but did not receive any notice of such eligibility is entitled to retroactive benefits. This policy is based on the Division's duty to administer the State's health plan, including notifying retirees of the availability of new types of coverage or benefits. The evidence showed that this policy takes precedence over the Rule when the Division has failed to notify an eligible retiree. In this case the Division failed to notify Petitioner of her eligibility for Medicare Coordination coverage due to her spouse's qualifications. Petitioner is therefore entitled to retroactive benefits beginning July 1985. Since the benefit of the Medicare Coordination coverage is a reduced premium, Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess premium of $42.76 a month from July 1985, through October 1987. The refund for that time period totals $1,154.52.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order refunding to Petitioner excess premiums paid to the Department in the amount of $1,154.52. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-301 The facts contained in paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j and k of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs l, m, and n of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph p of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph o of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are rejected. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence except for the fact relating to the letter being mailed first class mail. COPIES FURNISHED: Karren Lessard 15 West La Rua Street Pensacola, Florida 32521 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Andrew McMullian III Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
