The Issue The issue in this case is whether the expenses incurred by Petitioner incident to admission to Town & Country Hospital on December 11, 1999, resulted from an intentional self-inflicted injury, to wit: attempted suicide, and are therefore excluded from coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner, Sarah Nuding, was employed by the University of South Florida and was a participant in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (PPO). Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI), administers the state's self- funded group insurance plan for employees and has secured the services of BCBS as its third party administrator. On December 11, 1999, Petitioner called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's office after ingesting a handful of Wellbutrin and four tablets of Neurontin. Deputy Sheriff Midarst initiated involuntary examination pursuant to Section 394.463, Florida Statutes, (Baker Act), and Petitioner was admitted through the emergency room to Town & Country Hospital, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner was placed in the Hospital's Intensive Care Unit for observation of her seizure activity and remained there under observation and treatment until her release on December 13, 1999. Upon admission and after examinations, Petitioner was diagnosed with chronic anemia by the admitting physician who ordered consultation with the treating physician before medical services and treatment were provided. The admitting and treating physician, after review of Petitioner's hematocrit and hemoglobin levels which were above that normally requiring hospitalization, determined that Petitioner should be treated for the anemia condition before her discharge on December 13, 1999. Petitioner's State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document excludes coverage for services rendered for treatment of self-inflicted wounds, in pertinent part provides: The following are not Covered Services and Supplies under the Plan. The Participant is solely responsible for the payment of charges for all such services, supplies or equipment excluded in this Section. 5. Any services and supplies received due to the following circumstances: (b) Resulting from an intentional self- inflicted injury whether the Participant was sane or insane. An injury is intentionally self-inflicted if the Participant intended to perform the act that caused the injury regardless of whether the Participant intended to cause the injury. On or about July 31, 2000, BCBS notified DSGI that of the Hospital's statement totaling $8,244.00 for services and supplies rendered December 11-13, 1999, only $1,030.25 were directly related to a diagnosis of "anemia"; the remaining charges are for the diagnosis of "drug overdose" and are not covered expenses under the State PPO Plan. The decision by both BCBS and DSGI, to pay those charges related to Petitioner's diagnosis and treatment for anemia and to not pay those charges related to the suicide attempt, including two days intensive care unit cost of $1,150.00 per day, are supported by preponderance of the evidence, and is in accord with the terms and conditions of the insurance plan exclusion provision. Petitioner's position is that her prolonged hospital stay, medical treatment and supplies were: (a) not at her request and consent, (b) that her anemia condition was a pre- existing, and therefore, a covered condition, and (c) intensive care placement ($1,500.00 per day for two days) was not necessary to treat her pre-existing anemic condition, therefore, only her first day hospitalization expenses should have been excluded. However, Petitioner's position ignores the fact that her hospital admission was for a suicide attempt, and her stay resulted from the requirements of the Section 394.463, Florida Statutes, to wit: mandatory involuntary placement for 72 hours.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, issue a final order dismissing with prejudice the petition for administrative review. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarah C. Nuding 15501 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard Apartment 3705 Tampa, Florida 33647 Cynthia Henderson, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Mallory Roberts, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to change from individual to family coverage under the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan more that thirty-one calendar days after the birth of her son and outside the open enrollment period.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) District IV in 1986. For the past 18 months she has worked in her present position with HRS District IV in Deland, Florida. She presently resides with her husband in Deltona, Florida. HRS District IV personnel office is located at 5920 Arlington Expressway in Jacksonville, Florida. Linda Boutwell is employed as the Insurance Coordinator for HRS District IV. Petitioner gave birth to a son on January 6, 1990. On January 8, 1990, Petitioner called Linda Boutwell concerning the addition of her son to her State Health Insurance which would require a change from individual to family coverage. Mrs. Boutwell advised Petitioner that she could change from individual coverage to family coverage, but that the child would not be covered until the form was returned and approved. Boutwell indicated she would send her the necessary paperwork to add her son as a dependent. Mrs. Boutwell prepared and mailed the paperwork on January 8, 1990. It was received by Petitioner on January 10, 1990. Although Petitioner received the required enrollment papers on January 10, 1990, she did not return them to her personnel office. Petitioner states she did not return the papers to her personnel office because she understood from conversation with Linda Boutwell that her son's hospital bills would not be paid by the State Plan, since the child was not enrolled in the State Plan prior to that date. Instead, Petitioner elected to enroll in family coverage under her husband's employer's carrier. On March 15, 1990, Petitioner again called Linda Boutwell to request her son to be added to her insurance. Boutwell explained that Petitioner's request could not be honored since the request was beyond 31 days of the birth of the child. Therefore, Petitioner had to wait until the annual open enrollment period to obtain insurance coverage for the child. Petitioner's March 15, 1990 request was prompted by her discovery that the hospital bill related to the birth of her son was covered under the State Plan, even though she had not yet converted to the family coverage provision of the State Plan. Petitioner never asked Boutwell whether her individual hospital bill was covered or not. Petitioner's conclusion that her son's hospital birth would not be covered was based partly on the statement of a close friend who called Petitioner on January 7, 1990, to warn her to "expect problems" with her State Plan coverage. Petitioner has received a copy of the Amended State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Benefit Document, dated July 1, 1988. However, she did not examine it during the period January-March, 1990. Section II of the Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan states in pertinent part: II. Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services: The following services shall be covered when ordered by a physician and are medically necessary for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness. Inpatient hospital services under Subsections A., B., and H., are in connection with the pregnancy of only the employee . . . shall also include nursery charges of the child during the hospital stay of the mother. Petitioner does not offer any credible explanation why she did not convert to family coverage prior to or at the time of the birth of her son or during the 1989 open enrollment period which occurred during Petitioner's seventh month of pregnancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 through 11. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Millard, pro se 2391 Montano Street Deltona, FL 32725 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim against her state group health insurance company for services related to a Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination (MRI) should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by the State of Florida and was a participant in the State of Florida group health insurance plan, which is a self-insured plan administered by the State of Florida in conjunction with the plan's third party administrator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (BCBSF). This plan is frequently referred to as the PPO Plan, an acronym for preferred provider organization. Prior to April 26, 2002, Petitioner's physician detected a lump in Petitioner's right breast. Petitioner's physician ordered mammography and ultrasound examinations to be performed on Petitioner's right breast. Those examinations were performed on April 1, 2002. Following those tests, Petitioner's physician ordered an MRI examination of the right breast, which was performed on April 26, 2002, and is the procedure at issue in this proceeding. Following that MRI, Petitioner had another mammography and ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Respondent has paid Petitioner's claims for coverage of the mammography and ultrasound examinations. Respondent has denied payment for the professional fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $215.00. Respondent has paid the facility fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $1,705.00. Respondent asserts that the payment of that fee was in error and intends to seek reimbursement for that payment if it prevails in this proceeding. The terms of coverage of the state group health insurance plan are set forth in a document entitled "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" (Benefit Document). The Benefit Document (at page 31, paragraph 47 of the section entitled "Services Not Covered By The Plan") specifically excludes the following from coverage: 47. Services and procedures considered by BCBSF to be experimental or investigational, or services and procedures not in accordance with generally accepted professional medical standards, including complications resulting from these non-covered services. The Benefit Document has a section entitled "Definitions of Selected Terms Used By The Plan" beginning at page 49. The definition of the phrase "experimental or investigational services", found at page 51, includes, in pertinent part, the following: . . . any evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device that: * * * is generally regarded by experts as requiring more study to determine maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition based on the most recently published medical literature of the U.S., Canada or Great Britain using generally accepted scientific, medical or public health methodologies or statistical practices is not accepted in consensus by practicing doctors as safe and effective for the condition is not regularly used by practicing doctors to treat patients with the same or a similar condition The Benefit Document provides at page 51 that BCBSF and the Division of State Group Insurance determine whether a service is experimental or investigational. The testimony of Dr. Wood established that an MRI of the breast is experimental or investigational within the meaning of the Benefit Document. 2/ MRI examinations of the breast are not reliable diagnostic tools because such examinations result in an unacceptable number of cases where an MRI produces false negative findings that reflect the absence of cancer where cancer is, in fact, present in the breast. According to Dr. Wood, an MRI cannot be relied upon and should not be used to avoid a biopsy of a suspicious mass because a patient would run an unacceptable risk that the detection of cancer may be delayed or missed. Dr. Wood also testified that radiologists in Florida performing services for the state group insurance health plan have been informed of BCBSF's position. Petitioner's doctors did not inform her prior to the examination that the MRI examination would not be covered by her insurance plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying coverage for the MRI claims submitted by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2003.
The Issue Whether the State of Florida through its Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan is responsible for paying medical expenses incurred by Petitioner's newborn child where Petitioner had only individual coverage in effect at the time of that child's birth?
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida makes available to its employees several group insurance programs. In the area of health insurance, employees may choose to participate in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, or they may enroll in a number of different HMOs depending upon the county in which each employee resides. The State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter "the Plan") is a plan of self insurance established by the State, specifically described in a Benefit Document, and administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. In addition to the provisions of the Plan embodied in the Benefit Document, the self insurance plan is regulated by those rules contained in Chapter 22K, Florida Administrative Code. If an employee voluntarily chooses to participate in the Plan, the State as the employer contributes to the employee's costs by paying a portion of the premium for each employee. HMOs wishing to capture a portion of the State employee insurance market may participate in bidding procedures whereby the winner(s) can offer insurance to State employees in particular geographical locations. Winning HMOs must comply with many of the rules and provisions involved in the Plan but are still able to establish additional benefits and requirements for coverage. If an employee voluntarily chooses to participate in an HMO insurance program, the State will assist with the employee's costs by contributing to that employee's insurance premium expense. At the time that they commence employment with the State, employees may elect to participate in the Plan, in one of the HMOs approved for that particular geographical location, or may choose to not participate in any of the voluntary insurance programs offered through the State. Thereafter, employees may only join one of the insurance programs or switch between programs during an annual open enrollment period. An employee may purchase individual coverage, insuring only himself or herself, or an employee may purchase family coverage, insuring that employee and one or more of his or her eligible dependents. During an open enrollment period, an employee may switch between individual coverage and family coverage for the following year. Under the State Plan, there is an exception to the restriction that employees may only change coverage and health plans during the open enrollment period. An employee having individual coverage may change to family coverage within 31 days after the date of acquisition of any eligible dependent. In that event, coverage for the eligible dependent does not relate back to the date of acquisition but rather will commence on some future date following the payment of the additional premium required for the additional family coverage. Similarly, an employee with only individual coverage may begin family coverage prior to acquiring eligible dependents and may obtain coverage for those dependents effective on the actual date the dependent is acquired by making application in time for a complete month's premium to be deducted prior to the first day of the month during which the dependent(s) will be acquired. In other words, payment must be made prior to the acquisition of an eligible dependent and the change to family coverage with its increased premium must be made prior to the acquisition of the dependent in order that coverage can be effective as of the date of acquisition. During open enrollment periods, all employees (even those not currently participating in any of the insurance programs offered by the State) are given summary information regarding the various programs in which they are being given an opportunity to participate. Brochures giving summarized comparisons of the Plan and the relevant HMOs are provided to all employees. Employees are advised, if they have questions regarding the Plan, to contact their personnel officer or the Division of State Employees' Insurance. After the employee makes a selection as to which health plan he or she wishes to participate in, if any, the employee will subsequently receive more detailed information about that plan. For example, an employee choosing to participate in the Plan will subsequently receive a copy of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Brochure. The first page of that Brochure specifically advises the employee that the brochure does not include all of the provisions, definitions, benefits, exclusions, and limitations of the Plan. The Brochure specifically advises the employee that it is a summary of the benefits and that any questions the employee might have should be presented to the employee's agency personnel offices or the Office of State Employees' Insurance, and provides that latter office's address and telephone numbers. The Plan itself is a lengthy document which is not distributed to each individual employee but rather is made available to each agency's personnel office for reference by any interested employee. Under the Plan, a woman with individual coverage is entitled to maternity or pregnancy benefits. As part of those benefits, charges for "well baby care," i.e., the charges for the nursery for the baby, are covered under the Plan as part of the maternity benefit of the mother. In well-baby care, charges are not incurred by the baby as a separate patient. On the other hand, if a baby is ill and is admitted to the hospital as a patient in its own right, well-baby care coverage does not apply, and family coverage must be in effect or the infant will be an uninsured individual under the State Plan. The Dade County Public Defender's Office has approximately 265 employees. Faith Quincoses, an Administrative Assistant in that office, began her employment there in 1981 when the office had approximately 165 employees. As the number of office personnel increased, it was determined that someone within that Office should be responsible for employee benefits. That assignment was given to Quincoses, who at the time had duties related to payroll. Quincoses had no training in employee benefits, particularly employee insurance benefits, prior to her assuming responsibility for those duties at the Dade County Public Defender's Office. After she assumed those duties, the Public Defender's Office provided her with no training, and that office did not send her to any of the training sessions regularly conducted by Respondent for employees with and without personnel duties, including those seminars related to employee insurance benefits. When Quincoses would receive informational brochures and memoranda from Respondent regarding employee insurance benefits, she would read them but intentionally did not study them. She did not believe it was her responsibility to assist employees in selecting a particular insurance plan, or in advising employees as to which plan best met that employee's needs, or in answering any specific questions regarding coverage that any employee may have other than routine questions. Although many, if not most, of the informational brochures received from time to time by Quincoses advised employees (including Quincoses) to contact the Division of State Employees' Insurance with any questions regarding benefits and coverage, Quincoses did not contact that office when she had questions about the several insurance plans offered by the State to its employees. She very seldom contacted the Division of State Employees' Insurance to ask questions; rather, she discussed insurance benefits and coverage questions on an almost daily basis with a payroll clerk who worked for the Justice Administrative Commission, an agency belonging to the judicial branch of government with no responsibility or authority for administering the various insurance programs for state employees. Although Quincoses knew that she did not posses a copy of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan and had never read a copy, she made no effort to obtain a copy other than to once request a copy from the payroll clerk she daily contacted at the Justice Administrative Commission. When told by that payroll person that she did not have a copy of the Plan, Quincoses made no further efforts to obtain a copy and never requested a copy from the Division of State Employees' Insurance. Quincoses knew she was not an insurance expert and did not feel the need to become one. She believed that her responsibilities regarding the various insurance programs made available to employees by the State of Florida was to simply disseminate information provided to her, fill out the appropriate forms for payroll deductions, answer routine questions, and refer specific questions to the Division of State Employees' Insurance. She rightfully believed that each employee's decision as to which of the individual plans that employee should select was the employee's responsibility. Petitioner Annemarie Harris is an attorney employed as an Assistant Public Defender by the Dade County Public Defender's Office since October, 1983. As a new employee, she chose to enroll in one of the group health insurance programs approved by the State. She chose to join an approved HMO plan rather than enroll in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Thereafter, and up through December of 1987, each year during the open enrollment period, Petitioner chose to participate in one of the approved HMOs rather than the State's Self Insurance Plan. In December of 1987, the contract between the HMO of which Petitioner was a member and the State of Florida was being terminated, and Petitioner therefore had the option of selecting to participate in one of the other group health insurance programs offered through the State of Florida. In December of 1987, Petitioner was three months pregnant. Her baby was due to be born approximately June 20, 1988. Petitioner was, therefore, very interested in the most extensive coverage which she could obtain for her maternity benefits. Petitioner advised Quincoses that her expected delivery date was June 20, 1988, and that she wished her newborn to be covered by the insurance policy to be selected by Petitioner. Quincoses advised Petitioner that the baby's expenses would be covered if Petitioner added the newborn baby to Petitioner's coverage within 31 days after the date the baby was born. Quincoses did not advise Petitioner that waiting until after the baby's birth would mean that the baby would not be an individual insured until after Petitioner had paid the premium in time for the baby to be added as an insured by the first day of a month subsequent to the baby's birth, since Quincoses did not understand that distinction. The information Quincoses gave Petitioner was wrong and is not contained in any of the written materials describing the Plan which had been transmitted by the State to Quincoses or Petitioner, and is contrary to the information contained in Chapter 22K, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner then conducted her own investigation of which health plan she wished to choose by asking her friends that worked in the Public Defender's Office about their personal experiences. Further, as Petitioner testified at the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner's husband strongly insisted that she choose the State's Self Insurance Plan in which Plan he had previously participated as a State employee and with which he therefore had some familiarity. Petitioner did not contact the Division of State Employees' Insurance regarding her specific questions and specific situation, did not consult the Benefit Document itself and did not--although both she and her husband are attorneys--consult the rules and regulations regarding coverage contained within Chapter 22K, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner voluntarily selected the State's Self Insurance Plan and purchased only individual coverage, insuring herself at a lower premium than family coverage which would have covered the newborn infant as of the date of the baby's birth. It is unknown whether Petitioner relied solely on the advice of Quincoses in choosing to purchase individual coverage rather than family coverage, whether Petitioner relied instead on the advice she obtained from questioning her friends or whether she relied upon her husband's desires, in choosing to participate in the State Plan or in choosing to purchase only individual coverage. Although the basis for Petitioner's decision is unknown, her intentions at the time are clear. She planned to, and took steps to, initiate the paperwork necessary to switch to family coverage and pay the additional premium required early enough so that insurance for the baby would be in place on June 1, 1988, prior to the baby's expected arrival date. During April of 1988, Petitioner caused Quincoses to begin filling out the appropriate forms so that Petitioner would have family coverage in place as of June 1, 1988. Since Quincoses had earlier advised Petitioner that Petitioner could switch to family coverage after the baby's birth (which would make the baby's coverage effective subsequent to the baby's birth) but Petitioner chose instead to attempt to convert to family coverage prior to the baby's birth (which was contrary to Quincoses' advice and would have established coverage immediately upon the baby's birth), it can be reasonably inferred that Petitioner understood that the difference between converting to family coverage prior to the baby's birth rather than subsequent to the baby's birth involved the sole issue of the date on which the baby's coverage would become effective. Although Quincoses initiated the paperwork to have family coverage in place for Petitioner prior to the baby's birth expected to occur on June 20, 1988, Petitioner experienced complications with her pregnancy causing the baby to be delivered prematurely on April 24, 1988, prior to Petitioner signing and processing the paperwork started by Quincoses. Almost immediately after the baby's birth, the baby was transferred from the hospital in which her mother was a patient to another hospital where the baby was admitted as a separate patient. The baby remained in that hospital for some time, incurring medical expenses of approximately $180,000.00. Petitioner's medical expenses were paid by the Plan pursuant to her individual coverage. The baby's medical expenses were submitted to the Plan. Petitioner's claim for payment of the baby's medical expenses was denied for the reason that the baby was admitted to a different hospital than the mother as a separate patient but was not an insured under any insurance policy as of the date of the baby's birth, the date on which the baby commenced incurring her own personal medical expenses. When Petitioner converted her individual coverage to family coverage subsequent to the baby's birth, her claims for payment of the baby's medical expenses incurred subsequent to the date upon which the baby became an insured under the State Plan were denied since they arose from a condition pre-existing the date of commencement of insurance coverage. On April 24, 1988, Petitioner's newborn child was not an insured under the State Plan since Petitioner only had individual coverage on that date.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's claims for payment of medical expenses incurred by Petitioner's newborn baby which are the subject of this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of October, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO 88-5519 Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-4, 7-9, 15-18, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 40-42 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 5, 6, 10-12, 21, and 33 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 13, 14, 39, 44, and 45 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues for determination herein. Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 19 and 22-25 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 20, 26-31, and 43 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact numbered 32 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the totality of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact numbered 36 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-5, 7-18, the second 19-24, the first 27, the second 26, the second 27, and 28 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 6, the first 19, 25, and the first 26 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues required to be determined in this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Hurley, Esquire William P. Harris, Jr., Esquire Mitchell, Harris, Horr & Associates 2650 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137-4590 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 A. J. McMullian, III Interim Secretary 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 the Petitioner is required to reimburse the Respondent for prescription drugs acquired by the Petitioner through the Prescription Drug Program of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida during the latter part of 1985 and during 1986. His employment with the State began January 27, 1984. Prior to December 1, 1985, the Petitioner participated in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"). On October 31, 1985, the Petitioner signed a Change of Information form electing to terminate his participation in the State Plan and to begin participation in a Health Maintenance Organization (hereinafter referred to as an "HMO"). The HMO the Petitioner selected was the Capital Health Plan. The title of the form the Petitioner signed on October 31, 1985, contained the following: STATE OF FLORIDA EMPLOYEES GROUP HEALTH SELF INSURANCE PLAN CHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR USE ONLY BY A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THIS PLAN [Emphasis added]. Above the Petitioner's signature was the following "employee authorization": I hereby request the above changes in my coverage and/or insurance information in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan....[Emphasis added] Prior to terminating his coverage under the State Plan, the Petitioner was given a brochure titled "A Comparison of Health Benefit Plans Offered to Employees of the State of Florida" (hereinafter referred to as the "Comparison Brochure"). The brochure was for employees working in North Florida. The Comparison Brochure indicates there are two general types of health insurance plans available to state employees: HMO Benefit Plans and the State Plan. The Comparison Brochure also indicates there are four HMO Benefit Plans available. Capital Health Plan, the plan the Petitioner elected on October 31, 1985, is one of the clearly designated HMO Benefit Plans listed in the Comparison Brochure. The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for Capital Health Plan participants: "$3.00 co-payment at CHP pharmacy." The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for State Plan participants: "PPC provider not available at this time" if a preferred provider is used and "20 percent co-payment (7)" when a non-preferred provider is used. The reference to "(7)" is a footnote which provides: "Prescription Drug Plan will be implemented by 1-1-86, paying 100 percent after nominal dispensing fee." The Comparison Brochure contains the following other pertinent information: Along with the conventional group health self insurance plan administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the State of Florida offers its employees the opportunity to enroll in a different health care arrangement. This arrangement, called a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), is available to eligible employees who live within a specific geographic area surrounding the HMO. The Comparison Brochure contains other information that indicates that the State Plan and the Capital Health Plan HMO are completely different types or methods of obtaining health insurance coverage available to state employees. Based upon the information contained in the Comparison Brochure, which the Petitioner indicated he read, the Petitioner should have known that he was entitled to health insurance benefits under the Capital Health Plan HMO as of December 1, 1985, and that he was not entitled to any health insurance benefits under the State Plan. Sometime after December 20, 1985, the Petitioner received a letter from the Department of Administration which provided in pertinent part: Dear Participant: We are pleased to announce the new Prescription Drug Program. Effective January 1, 1986, coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through a prescription drug program serviced by Paid Prescriptions and National Rx Services, Inc. This program is specifically designed to save you money when you use a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) Pharmacy and Mail Service for your prescription drugs. [Emphasis added]. Included with the letter of December 20, 1985, was a "PLASTIC CARD to use at PPO and participating pharmacies" and a "brochure which gives you instruction on using the Program and a detachable patient profile for Mail Service." The prescription drug card the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed on it. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, which the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed at the top of the front cover of the brochure and elsewhere in the brochure. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, provided the following pertinent information: Coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through the Prescription Drug Program.... A toll-free telephone number was provided on the prescription drug card and the brochure which the Petitioner was instructed could be used if he had any questions. The prescription drug card sent to the Petitioner was sent to all state employees participating in the "State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan." It was not for use by state employees participating in the Capital Health Plan or other HMO's. The card was erroneously sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Because the Petitioner had terminated his coverage under the State Plan and elected to participate in an HMO effective December 1, 1985, he was not entitled to use the prescription drug card which he received from the Respondent. In order for the Respondent to have the prescription drug cards ready to be mailed to participants in the State Plan before January 1, 1986, the Respondent used information concerning participants prior to December 1, 1985. Evidently no effort was made by the Respondent to insure that participants who left the State Plan during the end of 1985 did not receive a prescription drug card. The Respondent did send a memorandum dated December 20, 1985, to Personnel Officers and Insurance Coordinators requesting that they attempt to retrieve prescription drug cards from employees who terminated their participation in the State Plan after November 1, 1985. No one retrieved the Petitioner's card. After receiving his card, the Petitioner spoke to the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where the Petitioner worked for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petitioner asked the business manager whether he could use the card and was told that he did not know but would find out. The business manager later told the Petitioner that he had talked to the district personnel office and been told that the Petitioner could use the card. On February 26, 1986, and February 27, 1986, the Petitioner used the prescription drug card to purchase prescription drugs in south Florida. The Petitioner talked with a physician at Capital Health Plan by telephone before purchasing the medications and was authorized to receive treatment by other than a Capital Health Plan physician. The State was billed $5.82 for the medications purchased with the card on February 21, 1986 and February 26, 1986. On March 1, 1986, the Petitioner again used the card to purchase medications. The card was used in Tallahassee, Florida. The State was billed $63.95 ($55.43 and $8.52) for the medications purchased with the card on March 1, 1986. The Petitioner did not use the card on any other occasion. The Petitioner testified that he did not use the card because he discovered that it was less costly to acquire the medications he needed from Capital Health Plan. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, however, the cost to the Petitioner was the same whether he used the plastic card or Capital Health Plan's pharmacy: $3.00. On or about March 27, 1986 and April 10, 1986, the Petitioner was informed that he had used the card to obtain medications for which use of the card was not authorized. The Petitioner was requested to return the card and to repay the amount incurred for the medications. The Petitioner did not respond to these requests. On August 26, 1986, the Petitioner was sent a letter requesting that he repay the cost of the medications he had acquired with the card. Although the Petitioner was requested to remit $77.02, the evidence only proved that $69.77 of medication was paid for by the State. On August 28, 1986, the Petitioner returned the prescription drug card he had been given to Andrew Lewis, an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner has not reimbursed the State for the cost of the medication he received. The $69.77 of medications paid for by the Respondent which the Petitioner acquired with the prescription drug card provided to him by the Respondent represents a payment on behalf of the Petitioner which he was not entitled to. The card was for use by state employees participating in the State Plan. As of December 1, 1985, the Petitioner was not a participant in this plan. When considered together, the information provided to the Petitioner should have put the Petitioner on notice as to the type of medical insurance coverage he was generally entitled to receive. In particular, the Petitioner should have known that he was eligible for coverage under the Capital Health Plan, an HMO, and that he was not entitled to coverage under the State Plan as of December 1, 1985. The Petitioner also should have known that the prescription drug card he received was for use of participants by the State Plan only and not participants of the Capital Health Plan. The Petitioner's reliance on the statements of the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where he worked was not reasonable in light of the other information which he had been provided about his coverage and the purpose of the prescription drug card he was sent. The Petitioner is not able to repay the $69.77 owed to the State in a lump sum. The Petitioner can only pay the $69.77 to the Respondent in monthly installments of $10.00 or less.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner pay $69.77 to the Respondent for prescription drugs received by the Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4111 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reasons for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 Although the Petitioner did not inten- ionally use the prescription card despite being informed that he was not entitled to it, he should have known that he was not entitled to use it. 2 RO 31. 3 RO 21. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. In light of the information provided to the Petitioner concerning the differences between the State Plan and an HMO, the Petitioner did not use due care to determine if the card was a part of the benefits he was entitled to receive as a participant in an HMO. 5 RO 25. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Walker testified that the coverage available to state employees is not confusing. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. RO 1. 2. RO 2. 3. RO 3-4 and 13-14. 4. RO 15, 18, 21 and 24. 5. RO 21 and 26. 6. RO 27. 7. RO 10. 8. RO 29. 9. RO 30. 10. RO 31. 11. COPIES FURNISHED: RO 36. Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 S. Philip Ford Post Office Box 20232 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
The Issue Although Petitioner did not identify a specific issue on which he sought resolution, and failed to request any specific remedy, counsel for the Respondent offered the following interpretation of the issue: whether the Petitioner is entitled to retroactive enrollment in the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan for any time during the period October 16, 1997 through February 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security from October 16, 1997 through February 13, 1998; and by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation from February 20, 1998 through March 26, 1998. Respondent's Exhibits 1-6. During all relevant times, the Division of State Group Insurance was responsible for contract management and day-to-day management of the state employee health insurance program, which contains various insurance options. Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Merrill Moody, Assistant Director of the Division of State Group Insurance (hereafter the "Division") testified. According to his agency's interpretation of the relevant rules and statutes, neither the Division nor an employing agency is responsible for making certain that employees timely enroll in an insurance plan in which they wish to subscribe. Approximately 30,000 employees per year opt not to enroll in a state insurance plan. The state plans, like public insurance companies, require that the enrollee file the necessary enrollment forms. Mr. Moody testified that the Division does not waive the 60-day filing deadline for insurance enrollment of new employees imposed by Rule 60P-2.002, Florida Administrative Code, because to do so would subject the Division to federal penalties, and would risk the pre-tax status of the plan. The Petitioner did not allege that he was misinformed about what forms were required to be filed in order to enroll in an insurance program. He also did not dispute the validity of the 60-day enrollment period for new employees. Patsy Kinsey, a Personnel Services Specialist of the Department of Labor and Employment Security (hereafter "DLES") testified. Although employees were not required to file a statement declining insurance coverage when they did not wish this benefit, she specifically remembered having discussed insurance enrollment requirements with the Petitioner. He first complained about his lack of insurance in May of 1998, more than 6 months after he began employment with DLES and more than 3 months after leaving that Department to begin working for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereafter "DBPR"). Petitioner admitted to her that he had not enrolled in an insurance plan with the State at any time during his employment with DLES. Ms. Kinsey remembered that the Petitioner informed her that he elected not to enroll because he had Medicaid coverage, and did not consider the additional coverage necessary. Ms. Kinsey personally authored the June 19, 1998, letter introduced as Respondent's Exhibit 3, for Ms. Louise Lambert's signature. While preparing the letter, Ms. Kinsey verified with another DLES employee, Ms. Angela Gray, that the Petitioner had actually declined insurance coverage during his 60-day enrollment period. Mr. Parmar testified that he did not have a copy of any form on which he claimed to have requested insurance coverage within the first 60 days of his eligible employment with DLES. Petitioner testified that he had filed such a form. Petitioner also testified that he kept copies of all important documents. Petitioner was permitted to file evidence of coverage after the hearing as a late-filed exhibit, but did not do so. The Petitioner denied having told Ms. Kinsey or anyone at DLES that he did not wish to enroll in an insurance plan. Mr. Moody testified that Petitioner received notice on each paycheck that insurance costs were not being deducted. Insurance cards are mailed out to all new enrollees. The Petitioner's statements conflict with Ms. Kinsey's statement that the Petitioner admitted to her that he had not filed the enrollment form during his enrollment period, and with the testimony of Ms. Kinsey and Mr. Moody, who each stated that employing agencies enter enrollment information into the system as a matter of course. The Petitioner did not complain about his lack of insurance until approximately six months after he began his full- time with DLES, at which time he could not be covered until the next open enrollment period. The Department of Management Services (DMS) is responsible for developing uniform rules to implement Section 110.217, Florida Statutes, regarding such issues as appointments and reassignments. According to Rule 60K-4.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, a change in employing agencies within the Career Service System is not considered a new appointment when not more than 30 days elapse between the separation form the first agency and the beginning of work with the new agency. It is considered a reassignment appointment. Rule 60P-2.010(1), Florida Administrative Code, states that "(a) change from one state agency does not constitute new employment; therefore, enrollment or coverage eligibility does not change." Loriane Irvin, Senior Personnel Manger at DMS, testified regarding her agency's interpretation of its rules. She testified that according to Rules 60K-4.0021 and 60K- 4.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner's leaving employment with DLES and beginning employment with DBPR less than 30 days later is not considered a new appointment. Therefore, Petitioner was not eligible to enroll after he changed jobs. Merrill Moody testified regarding the interpretation of Rule 60P-2.002(a), Florida Administrative Code. Employees are permitted to make enrollment changes "during the first sixty (60) calendar days of state employment or a new term of office." Rule 60P-2.002(c), Florida Administrative Code, entitles employees to make enrollment changes within 31 days after experiencing a "qualifying status change of losing other group health coverage." 1/ Ms. Irvin confirmed Mr. Moody's statement regarding the Agency's interpretation of Rule 60P-2.002, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the Petitioner's change of agencies in February of 1998. According to the Agency's interpretation, a reassignment neither begins an employee's term of state employment, nor does it begin a "new term of office." If the Petitioner sought insurance coverage for medical costs he had incurred, he had to submit invoices documenting such costs within 60 days of the hearing pursuant to the post-hearing order. The Administrative Law Judge informed Petitioner at the hearing that without evidence of the medical treatments rendered and the corresponding costs incurred, a determination could not be made as to the damage suffered by the Petitioner. 2/ If retroactive coverage were ordered, as a result of this proceeding, the Petitioner would have to submit all of the required premiums for the remainder of the year in which he had enrolled in insurance coverage as a pre-requisite for reimbursement. This amount would depend on whether individual or family coverage were selected, and the premiums could exceed the amount of reimbursement to which an insured might be entitled for medical costs. Mr. Moody explained that not all medical procedures are covered under any insurance plan offered by the State, and that 100 percent of covered costs are paid according to the plans.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is proposed that a final order be entered dismissing the petition and confirming the denial of insurance coverage sought by Petitioner dating back to October 16, 1997, and extending through February 13, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1999.
