Findings Of Fact Petitioner resigned from State Government on July 23, 1987. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was covered under the Florida State Group Health Insurance Plan. His wife, who is a diabetic, was also covered under Petitioner's insurance. Upon termination Petitioner was eligible for continuation of coverage benefits under the federal COBRA Act. However, prior to receiving any notice of his COBRA rights, Petitioner elected to continue his State Employees' Insurance for two months from July 1, 1987 and then begin coverage under his new employer's insurance plan. 2/ Petitioner made advance payment on the 2 months additional coverage. The payments carried his State Employees' health insurance through September 1, 1987 when it was terminated. DOA notified Petitioner on August 27, 1987, of his right to elect continuation of coverage under the COBRA Act. This notice complied with the notice requirements under the COBRA Act. COBRA provides continued health insurance coverage for up to (18) months, after a covered employee leaves employment. However, coverage does not continue beyond the time the employee is covered under another group health plan. COBRA simply fills the gap between two different employers group health insurance plans so that an employee's group health insurance does not lapse while the employee changes jobs. Petitioner's new employer's health coverage began around September 1, 1987. After Petitioner had begun coverage under his new insurance plan, he discovered that his wife's preexisting diabetic condition would not be covered. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner, within 60 days of September 1, 1987 requested the Division of State Employee's Insurance to continue his insurance coverage pursuant to COBRA. Moreover, Petitioner's COBRA rights terminated when he began his coverage under his new employer's health plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for continuation of coverage under COBRA. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's insurance agent licenses as, Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), and Health (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner was created in accordance with Section 20.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been conferred general power by the Legislature, to regulate the insurance industry in Florida, in accordance with Section 624.307, Florida Statutes. Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. Petitioner issued Respondent license No. A140590. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent has been licensed in Florida as agent for insurance in Life (2-16), and Life and Health (2-18). On December 2, 1992, Respondent had been issued a Health (2-40) license, but that license is no longer valid having been voluntarily cancelled. The cancellation occurred at a time previous to December 18, 2003, when a license history document was prepared, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. Respondent conducts business as an insurance agent under the name Business Insurance Cafeteria. The business is located at 828 Hamilton Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida. Respondent has been licensed as an insurance agent for over 50 years, 44 years of which have been in Florida. Acting as an insurance agent has been Respondent's principal occupation. During that time the emphasis in his business has been on health insurance. TRG Affiliation In April 2001, an acquaintance and insurance agent Ellen Averill introduced Respondent to Robert Trueblood, Sr. Respondent understood that Mr. Trueblood was the Managing General Agent for TRG. Mr. Trueblood, at the time, was from Hobe Sound, Florida. Mr. Trueblood gave information to Respondent about TRG pertaining to its involvement in the insurance business. Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that individuals within TRG were personal friends of Mr. Trueblood. In turn, Respondent made a call to Petitioner at the end of April or first part of May 2001. Someone that he spoke to, whose identity and position within the Petitioner's hierarchy was not established in the record, made a comment which cannot be established as fact given its hearsay nature. Nonetheless, following this conversation, Respondent became affiliated with the TRG organization which Respondent understood to be an ERISA program, not subject to Petitioner's oversight. At that time, Respondent's knowledge of what an ERISA program entailed was based upon reading he had done in the past. Respondent was of the impression that the ERISA program was under the auspices of the federal government, as opposed to the state government. Respondent had never taken specific courses concerning the ERISA program before his engagement with TRG. Respondent's involvement with TRG was his first effort to market what he considered to be ERISA program insurance. When Respondent commenced his participation with TRG, he believed that an ERISA program was instituted by a document filed with the Department of Labor outlining insurance benefits and that TRG had put up reserves associated with the ERISA program. Respondent did not obtain anything in writing from the Department of Labor concerning TRG as an ERISA program. To begin with, Respondent believed that ERISAs had to involve 51 or more lives in being before coverage could be obtained. Again, this was not a market that Respondent had worked in but he understood that ERISAs involved coverage of that number of individuals. From conversations with Mr. Trueblood and Tom Dougherty, another managing General Agent for TRG, of Cocoa Beach, Florida, Respondent became persuaded that ERISAs could be marketed to companies with a single life being insured or two to three lives in a small group market. Respondent relied on Mr. Trueblood when Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that ERISA, as a federal program did not have to be licensed by the state. Mr. Dougherty made a similar comment to Respondent. Ms. Averill also commented to Respondent concerning her impression about TRG as an ERISA program. From this record, Respondent was not officially told by persons within the Petitioner's agency, that the TRG program was an ERISA program that did not have to be licensed in Florida. TRG provided Respondent marketing material. Respondent was impressed with the "very professional" appearance of that material. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 admitted into evidence is constituted of material provided to Respondent by TRG. It refers to the TRG health plan under "the Redwood Group." It refers to marketing under an organization identified as Premier Financial Group USA, Inc. It describes PPO networks available with the TRG products. The document refers to the TRG/USA health plan (the Redwood Group, L.L.C./USA Services Group, Inc.) and various versions of employer health and welfare benefit plans and a client fee schedule effective May 1, 2001, for enrollees in the 80/60 plan and 90/70 plan. Participant co- pays for physician office visits are related. Those plans identified in the material describe the amount of deductibles according to age groups and participation by members and additional family participants. The TRG document speaks of benefits attributable to the 80/60 and 90/70 health plans. This information contained comments about the Redwood Companies- Corporate Overview. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 comments upon the ERISA program and the provision of health benefits for employees through self-funded employee health and welfare benefit plans as a means, according to the document, to exempt those plans from state insurance regulation. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 touts what it claims are savings to be derived compared to current health insurance plans held by prospective purchasers. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an associate application agreement setting forth policies and procedures that Respondent would be obligated to meet as an associate with TRG acting as an independent contractor. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an application format for prospective enrollees in the TRG preferred provider plans to execute in applying for coverage. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 refers to Robert W. Trueblood, Sr., as being affiliated with Premier Financial Group, USA Inc., under the TRG banner. Mr. Trueblood sent Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 to Respondent. Respondent began his contacts with TRG in May 2001 and wrote his first enrollment contract in association with TRG in August or September 2001. Beyond that time, Respondent was notified on November 27, 2001, that effective November 30, 2001, a cease and desist order had been issued against TRG's offering its health coverage in Florida. The commissions earned by Respondent in selling the TRG health insurance product ranged from five to seven percent. Respondent earned less than $1,000.00 in total commissions when selling TRG health insurance products. The persons who participated with TRG in its preferred provider plan were referred to the claims administrator of USA Services. Participants in the TRG preferred provider plan sold by Respondent received information outlining the benefits. Participants received medical I.D. cards. This information was provided directly to the participants. Respondent was aware of the information provided to the participants. An example of this information is set out in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2. In offering the TRG health coverage, Respondent told his customers that this plan was not under the purview of the Department of Insurance in Florida, that this was an ERISA program. Respondent told his customers that any problems experienced with the program could be addressed through resort to the federal court. Respondent did remind the customers that making the Florida Department of Insurance aware of their claims could create a record in case they went to federal court. Respondent is familiar with the prohibition against acting as an insurance agent for companies not authorized to transact business in Florida. But he held to the opinion that TRG was an ERISA program under the federal auspices and not subject to Petitioner's control. At the inception, Respondent believed that offering the TRG health insurance coverage would be an acceptable choice. That proved not to be true. When it was discovered that TRG would not pay claims related to health coverage for policies Respondent sold to his customers, Respondent made an attempt to find replacement coverage. To this end, Respondent had received information reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 5. The document discussed the prospect that insurance would be provided from the Clarendon Insurance Company (Clarendon), using the provider Network Beechstreet, with Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance Brokers in Plantation, Florida, being involved in the process to substitute coverage for TRG. Baftal is the shorthand reference for Bertany Association for Travel and Leisure, Inc. Baftal is an insurance agency. Respondent made some explanation to his customers insured through TRG of the prospect of using Clarendon to take over from TRG, which had not honored any of the claims for reimbursement made by Respondent's customers. A copy of this December 28, 2001, correspondence from Respondent to TRG's insureds who had been sold policies through Respondent, is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. As described in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 7, Baftal sent information concerning health care coverage to business owners, to include Respondent's customers, as described in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This correspondence indicated that the benefit plan would become effective December 1, 2001, upon condition that the insured meet applicable underwriting standards. This communication was made following receipt of premiums paid by the insured. Reimbursement for claims were to be processed through Advancement Administration in Maitland, Florida. Baftal did not assume the claims that had not been honored by TRG, and Clarendon did not become the insurer for those customers. Baftal did not follow through with the offer to provide health benefits to Respondent's customers who had begun with TRG. On February 11, 2002, as evidenced by Respondent's Exhibit numbered 8, Baftal wrote the customers to advise that health benefits would not be provided. That exhibit mentions American Benefit Plans through a Mr. David Neal and some intention for Mr. Neal's organization to provide a benefits program, including insurance through Clarendon, as administered through Advanced Administration. The Baftal communication goes on to say that Baftal had learned that Clarendon was not an insurer on the program, that the only insurer on the program was an offshore insurance company about which Baftal had not received credible information. The letter remarks that premiums paid to Baftal by the customers were being returned. On April 4, 2002, as related in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 9, TRG wrote to persons who were identified as health plan participants, to include Respondent's customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The letter stated that due to a problem with USA Services Group, the claims administrator on November 30, 2001, when the TRG plan ended, claims were not being paid. The correspondence remarks about difficulties with USA Services experienced by TRG, promising that TRG would fulfill obligations to the customers who were participants in the health plan. Contrary to this promise, TRG has not honored claims for those customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. On December 12, 2001, as reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4, Petitioner had written consumers who had enrolled in the TRG health plan to advise that the Petitioner did not consider the TRG health plan to be an ERISA program. Under the circumstances, the correspondence indicated that TRG should have sought authorization from Petitioner to sell health plans in Florida, which had not been done. The correspondence refers to some acknowledgement by TRG that it was not an ERISA program and needed to be licensed in Florida to conduct business. The correspondence advises the consumer to cease payment of any further premiums to TRG, to include the cancellation of automatic bank drafts for payment of premiums. The correspondence advises the consumer to obtain replacement insurance through Florida licensed insurance companies or HMOs. The letter goes on to remind the consumer of certain plans that were not licensed in Florida to conduct business because they were perceived to be illegitimate companies. The communication urged the consumer not to enroll in those health insurance plans. Respondent was made aware of this communication. Count I: Vicki Brown Vicki Brown has a business known as Rainbows End Ranch located in St. Johns County, Florida. This is a one-person business involving boarding and training of horses. Ms. Brown was interested in obtaining permanent health insurance, in that her COBRA policy was expiring. As a consequence, she was referred to Respondent by a friend. Respondent met Ms. Brown at her place of business. She explained to him her health insurance needs. Respondent suggested obtaining health insurance through TRG. Ms. Brown agreed. Ms. Brown paid $165.00 to TRG by check to cover the premium for September 2001. Two additional amounts of $165.00 were withdrawn from her checking account to pay premiums to TRG for the months that followed. Subsequently, Ms. Brown received Petitioner's December 12, 2001, letter informing her that TRG was not allowed to conduct business in Florida, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered Beyond that point, Ms. Brown had difficulties in her attempt to be reimbursed for her medical treatment, presumably covered by the TRG plan, by seeking reimbursement through another insurance firm other than by TRG. That process was pursued through Baftal in relation to insurance offered by Clarendon. Ms. Brown made Respondent aware that she had problems with reimbursement and of the receipt of Petitioner's letter. Respondent told her not to worry about the situation, that things were going to be taken care of by Clarendon taking over where TRG left off. Ms. Brown received Respondent's form correspondence dated December 28, 2001, explaining the switch from TRG to Clarendon, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. Ms. Brown also received information from Advancement Administration concerning Clarendon as the insurance company, Beechstreet as the provider network, mentioning Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance as brokers, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. Following her difficulties with TRG, on January 2, 2002, Ms. Brown wrote a check to the Baftal Escrow Account in the amount of $513.40 for premiums in relation to Clarendon. As can be seen, the payment to Clarendon represented an increase in premium compared to TRG. The check for $513.40 had been written out to LPI Clarendon and changed by Respondent to reflect the Baftal Escrow Account. In January 2002, Ms. Brown called Respondent and was told that the paperwork he was filling out was wrong and that he needed to complete new forms for Baftal "Insurance Brokers." According to Respondent, that explained why the coverage through Baftal had not gone into effect. Ms. Brown had received Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, the communication from Baftal calling for additional information as a prerequisite to obtaining insurance benefits effective December 1, 2001. Information provided in the document concerning issues related to her coverage was not useful to Ms. Brown when she made inquiry consistent with the instructions contained in the document. Concerning her claims for reimbursement, Ms. Brown had a health problem with her throat. In addressing the condition, she was told by her primary care doctor, that when trying to arrange for a specialist to attend her care through the Beechstreet Provider Network, which was part of the health care offered through the Baftal Agency, it was reported that Beechstreet was bankrupt. Then Ms. Brown called Respondent to ask his advice. Respondent told her he was not sure how to respond "right now things are in a haywire." Beyond that point Ms. Brown found out that Clarendon, part of the Baftal arrangement was not going to insure her business. In particular, Ms. Brown received the February 11, 2002, communication from Baftal commenting that insurance would not be provided through Baftal, remarking that Clarendon was not an insurer. This communication is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 12. After the TRG and Baftal experiences, Ms. Brown tried to be placed on her husband's health insurance policy but had trouble getting a certificate to allow her to obtain that coverage. This was in relation to the need for the existence of continuing coverage before being placed on the husband's policy. Fortunately, Ms. Brown was eventually able to get insurance through her husband's policy. Ms. Brown was dismayed by the difficulty experienced in obtaining health insurance when she discovered that TRG and Baftal would not meet her health insurance needs. From the evidence, it has been determined that the TRG plan purchased by Ms. Brown was the 80/60 plan with the $1,000.00 deductible. Although Ms. Brown testified that her medical bills in the period in question would total close to $1,000.00, the evidence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8, constituted of medical bills around that time do not approximate than amount. Ms. Brown had received a TRG benefit handbook and membership card, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 9 and 10, associated with her participation in the 80/60 plan with a $1000.00 deductible and co-pay of $10.00 for a physician office visit and $20.00 for a specialist office visit. In summary, none of the companies from whom Ms. Brown purchased insurance through Respondent, commencing with TRG, have paid for any of her claims for reimbursement for medical care during the relevant time period. In addition to not receiving a reimbursement for premiums paid to TRG, Ms. Brown did not receive the return of her premium paid to Baftal either. Count II: Alicia Moore Alicia Moore at one time was employed by Respondent. The position Alicia Moore held with Respondent's insurance agency was that of general office clerk. Ms. Moore has never been licensed in any capacity by Petitioner, related to the sale of insurance and has not taken courses to educate herself about the insurance business. In addition to her employment with Respondent, she purchased health insurance through Respondent with TRG around September 2001. Ms. Moore purchased the TRG health insurance policy in the interest of her husband's subchapter S corporation, small business. Her husband's name is Randy Moore. The name of the company operated by the husband is M-3 Enterprises, Inc. The husband's company has one employee, Randy Moore. The Moores resided in St. Augustine, Florida, at times relevant to the inquiry. The husband's business had been insured for health coverage by Humana, until Humana determined that it was not willing to provide health insurance for the company and the Moores decided that the individual policies offered by Humana in substitution for the group policy were too expensive. The Moores chose TRG for health insurance after Respondent had discussed several health insurance plans including individual or group policies. The reason for the choice was the premium price. On September 19, 2001, Randy Moore paid $434.00 for the health insurance premium to Redwood Group, in the interest of obtaining health insurance from TRG. On November 2, 2001, an additional $434.00 was debited from the checking account for M-3 Enterprises, to TRG for premiums related to the health insurance coverage. Ms. Moore recalls Respondent telling her that the TRG health plan was an ERISA plan but she has no knowledge about ERISA plans being regulated under federal law. In that connection, Ms. Moore commented in a statement given by affidavit, that Respondent told her that TRG was not regulated by Petitioner. Respondent explained to Ms. Moore that the premium payments to TRG were lower in costs because TRG was an ERISA program. TRG sent correspondence to the Moores as participants in the health plan. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 15. It enclosed a membership issued to Randy Moore setting forth the $10.00 co-pay for a physician visit, $20.00 co-pay for a specialist office visit, and $50.00 co-pay for emergency room visits associated with the participation in Plan 8033. The nature of the plan that the Moores had was a member- plus family. The cover letter listed the telephone number for the claims administrator USA Services to address claims or customer services questions. Ms. Moore also received a packet from TRG explaining the process of filing claims for health care. After obtaining the TRG health coverage, Ms. Moore and her son received treatment for medical conditions contemplated under the terms in the TRG plan. Notwithstanding the submission of information for reimbursement related to the charges, the charges were not paid under the TRG plan. The total of these claims was approximately $727.00. That $727.00 was less co- payments already made for the medical services. Ms. Moore made the Respondent aware that TRG was not reimbursing her for medical bills. Respondent gave Ms. Moore the telephone number for Tom Dougherty, Managing General Agent for TRG, expecting Mr. Dougherty to be able to assist Ms. Moore in dealing with outstanding medical bills. Ms. Moore called Mr. Dougherty several times, but this did not lead to the payment of the medical bills. Ms. Moore also sent TRG a certified letter in August 2002 concerning bills outstanding since October 2001, attaching the bills and information concerning payment of premiums for the coverage. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 18. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 21 is a compilation of information concerning the outstanding medical bills, and a statement from Medical Accounts Services, Inc. (Medical Accounts) concerning a current balance on June 17, 2002, of $229.00. The Moores had to make an arrangement to repay the money which was being collected through Medical Accounts. It is not clear from the record the exact nature of the member with family plan that had been purchased by the Moores. Consequently, the deductible in force when claims were submitted for reimbursement is not readily apparent. Ms. Moore in her testimony was unable to recall the amount of the deductible for the policy issued from TRG. It does appear from a review of the fee schedule associated with the 80/60 plan and the 90/70 plan offered by TRG, that the premium payments made did not entitle the Moores to coverage associated with a $500.00 deductible or $250.00 deductible. The other possible amount for the deductible, by process of elimination is $1,000.00. The Moores received correspondence dated November 28, 2001, sent to Randy Moore as a TRG enrollee, indicating that the coverage would end effective November 30, 2001, and reminding Mr. Moore that, according to the correspondence, he would have to find other health coverage as of December 1, 2001. This correspondence, as with other similar correspondence that has been discussed, promised to continue to process claims for covered services incurred before the coverage ended. The TRG letter terminating coverage for the Moores was received by the Moores five days after the date upon which the correspondence indicated that the coverage would no longer be in effect. This circumstance was very disquieting to Ms. Moore. The claims by Ms. Moore and her child were within the covered period for the TRG policy as to their dates. The letter received from TRG is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17. Ms. Moore spoke to Respondent about obtaining coverage when TRG discontinued its coverage. Respondent suggested that the Moores affiliate with Baftal. The Moores made a premium payment to Baftal but within a week of being accepted for coverage, Baftal wrote to advise that coverage had been declined. Beyond that time, the Moores obtained coverage from Medical Savings Insurance, a company that they still use for health insurance. Concerning Baftal, by correspondence dated February 11, 2002, Baftal wrote the Moores as a member, the form letter that has already been described, in which the Moores were told that they would not be provided health benefits. Given the problem described with Clarendon Insurance Company, the letter noted the return of the premium paid for coverage through Baftal. A copy of the letter sent to the Moores is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 19. Baftal did not reimburse the Moores for the outstanding claims totaling approximately $727.00. Count III: Bruce Chambers Bruce Chambers was another customer who bought TRG health insurance from Respondent. Mr. Chambers was a Florida resident at the time he purchased the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers and his wife moved to Florida from Georgia earlier in 2001. When they moved, the prior health insurance coverage that the Chambers held carried a high premium given Ms. Chambers diabetic condition. Moving from one state to the next also increased that premium. Under the circumstances, the Chambers agreed to purchase the TRG Health Plan. At one time related to the transaction promoted by Respondent, Mr. Chambers believed that TRG was licensed in Florida. He held this belief even in the instance where Respondent had commented that TRG was an ERISA program. Mr. Chambers also executed a coverage disclaimer in November 2001, upon a form from Respondent's agency noting that the health, welfare program applied for was not under the auspices of the Florida Department of Insurance. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 36. After purchasing the TRG policy, the wife developed an illness, and costs were incurred for services by the family's personal physician and for hospitalization. In addition Mr. Chambers had medical expenses. Exclusive of co-pays and the deductibles that are applicable, Mr. Chambers paid $7,478.46 for the health care he and his wife received. None of that amount has been reimbursed through TRG as expected under the terms of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 a month, plus $18.00 in other fees, for two months related to coverage effective October 1, 2001, extending into November 2001, a total of $1,010.00 in premiums and fees paid to TRG. No premiums and fees paid to TRG have been reimbursed. The amount of premium paid by Mr. Chambers corresponds under the client fee schedule in effect May 1, 2001, associated with the TRG Health Plan, as pertaining to an 80/60 plan for a member and family with a $1,000.00 deductible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 26 is constituted of the calculation of the expenses, $7,478.46 and attaches billing information, some of which is for services and care received prior to December 1, 2001, and some of which is for services and care beyond that date. When Mr. Chambers discovered that TRG was not reimbursing the costs which it was obligated to pay for health care received by the Chambers, he contacted the Respondent and TRG to gain satisfaction. He also contacted Petitioner. When Mr. Chambers enrolled in the TRG plan he received the transmittal letter enclosing his benefits card, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 23. The membership card identified his participation in plan 8033, with a co-pay for physician office visits of $10.00, specialty office visits of $20.00, and emergency room visits of $50.00. Mr. Chambers received notice from the Petitioner, presumably the December 12, 2001, notification concerning the lack of authority for TRG to business in Florida and the advice that CHEA (Consumer Health Education Association) was not authorized to do business in Florida either. On December 20, 2001, the Chambers wrote Respondent concerning the unavailability of insurance through TRG and CHEA. The Chambers asked Respondent to give them advice about a list of "small group market carriers" they understood to offer health plans. This letter to Respondent is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25. Also, within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 was a copy of the letter from Respondent to TRG insureds dated December 28, 2001, which made mention of Clarendon as an alternative to TRG. Within that same exhibit is correspondence dated January 21, 2002, from the Respondent to enrollees in the TRG plan, to include the Chambers, discussing Baftal and the prospect that the latter company might honor TRG claims. Finally, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 contains an August 21, 2002, letter from Mr. Chambers to TRG asking TRG to pay for its portion of the medical expenses as reimbursement. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 27 is the December 1, 2001, application by Mr. Chambers to obtain medical benefits through CHEA. The application also refers to EOS Health Services. This predates Petitioner's warning about CHEA and EOS being licensed to do business in Florida. On December 1, 2001, Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 for premium payments to EOS Health Services and provided a voided check for future payments for premiums by automatic withdrawal from his account. This effort was made as a follow on to obtain health coverage when TRG no longer provided health insurance to the Chambers. To obtain health coverage, Mr. Chambers paid $1,465.88 to the Baftal Escrow Account. This payment was made by a check dated January 14, 2002. That money was refunded by Baftal on January 12, 2002, and no coverage was offered through that company for health insurance. Mr. Chambers had been provided information about the opportunity to obtain insurance from Baftal as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 31. Respondent had also suggested that Mr. Chambers apply for health insurance from American Benefit Plan, following the discontinuance of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers applied for that coverage by documents dated February 18, 2002, in the interest of his company, Bruce A. Cambers, CFP. Information concerning that application is found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 32. American Benefit Plans was listed by Petitioner as an entity not allowed to conduct business in Florida in the December 12, 2001, letter of advice to insurance consumers following the problem with TRG. Mr. Chambers wrote two checks, one in the amount of $628.60 to Independent Managers Association and one for $799.68 to the Association of Independent Managers, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 35 and 33 respectively. The two checks were written on February 18, 2002. Those checks were voided in relation to payment for monthly insurance premiums and association dues. The effect was to not accept those checks for premium payments to obtain health insurance. On March 5, 2002, ACH Corporation of America wrote Mr. Chambers stating that because of incorrect procedures, or untimely submission, health coverage would not be extended, pertaining to an application for Ultra Med Choice EPO. Ultra Med was another health insurance business which Petitioner in its December 12, 2001, correspondence to health care consumers had been identified as unlicensed to conduct health insurance business in Florida. The letter declining coverage from ACH and application information for a policy sought to become effective December 1, 2001, is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered This application was in relation to Bruce Chambers, CFP as employer. Mr. Chambers remains out of pocket for payments he had to make for health care extended, principally to his wife, for which TRG was obligated to provide reimbursement in part. None of the other policies that Mr. Chambers attempted to obtain worked out to substitute for the TRG obligation for reimbursement for health care claims. Eventually the Chambers were able to obtain health insurance. At present the Chambers have a two-man group policy through Mr. Chambers' business to provide health coverage. Because of the problem with health insurance coverage, Ms. Chambers was required to return to work. Her employment was outside Mr. Chambers' company, as well as within his company. As a result of Ms. Chambers' failure to make payments to Flagler Hospital, where Ms. Chambers had received care, under terms that should have involved TRG providing reimbursement for costs, the bills were turned over to a collection agency compromising the credit standing of the Chambers. For the most part, the credit problems have been resolved. Due Diligence As established by testimony from Linda Davis, Analyst II in Petitioner's Jacksonville Office, there is a means to determine whether an insurance company has the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida. This is accomplished by resort to the electronic data base maintained by Petitioner. A certificate of authority is an indication that the insurance company has completed the necessary requirements to be licensed or authorized to sell insurance in Florida. As established through Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 39, TRG/USA Health Plans, TRG Marketing L.L.C. was not authorized to do business in Florida. An insurance agent licensed in Florida, to include the time frame envisioned by the Amended Administrative Complaint, would have had access to the data base identifying whether an insurance company had the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida and could properly have been expected to seek this information before engaging in the sale of products from a company such as TRG. Rather than avail himself of that opportunity, Respondent made some form of inquiry to Petitioner on the subject of TRG, while apparently ignoring the more fundamental consideration of whether TRG had been granted a certificate of authority to conduct its business in Florida, which should have been pursued. Ascertaining the existence or nonexistence of a certificate of authority, constitutes "due diligence" incumbent upon an agent before engaging in the sale of insurance from a prospective insurance company. Respondent's Disciplinary History Petitioner has not taken disciplinary action against Respondent before this case.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 624.11, 626.611(7) and (8), 626.621(2) and (6), 626.901(1), Florida Statutes (2001); suspending his licenses for nine months; placing Respondent on two-years probation; and requiring attendance at such continuing education classes as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph O. Stroud, Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an employee of the State of Florida, and was at all times pertinent, a member of the State Group Health Insurance Program administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. In March of 1984, Petitioner was hospitalized due to severe indigestion and abdominal pain. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital and informed by his physician that if his condition worsened, surgery would be necessary. Petitioner's condition worsened and on May 28, 1984, his physician, R. Klein Bowen, M.D., admitted him to the hospital with a pre-operative diagnosis of chronic acalculus cholecystitis which is chronic inflammation of the gallbladder. On May 29, 1984, said physician operated upon petitioner and his operative report listed the following under the title "Operation": Cholescystectomy. Attempted operative cholangiogram. Incidental appendectomy. The description of the operative procedure stated in the operative report (Respondent's Exhibit 1) establishes that the appendectomy which was performed was accomplished through the same incision which was made for performing the cholescystectomy (gallbladder removal). The operative report stated that the appendix was not acutely inflamed. Subsequent to the operative procedures the Petitioner filed a claim with the State Group Health Insurance Plan administrator, seeking payment for the following charges: May 28, 1984, $90.00 for consultation and case history preparation prior to surgery; May 29, 1984, $1,350.00 Cholescystectomy; May 29, 1984, $375.00 Appendectomy. All of said services were performed by R. Klein Bowen, M.D. The State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan paid the charge for the cholescystectomy and denied the claims for consultation and case history preparation prior to the surgery and for the appendectomy. The State Self- Insurance Plan justified its denial of Petitioner's claim for the above benefits based upon limitations it alleged were contained in the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self-Insurance Plan Benefit Document (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Section VIII entitled "Limitations" in paragraph I. specifies that payment may be made for in-patient medical care physician visits in addition to payment for surgery only when the condition which required medical care is not related to the surgery and does not constitute a part of the pre-operative or post-operative care. Additionally, Section VIII, F. specifies that no additional payment shall be made for a surgical procedure which is an incidental procedure performed through the same incision. Petitioner did not dispute the provisions which Respondent alleged were limitations justifying denial of payment, although he asserted that the provisions contained within the Group Health Self-Insurance Plan Benefit Document were not cost effective and would result in additional expenses and lost time from work and were worthy of reconsideration. However, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence to support his claim or refute the limitations relied upon by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petition. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Richardson 2909-198 South Semoran Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32822 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive a refund of insurance premiums paid to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division administers health plans, including COBRA, for the benefit of employees of the State of Florida. Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida from 1991 until February 11, 2000, which was his last day on the payroll of the Office of the Attorney General. On May 27, 1998, Petitioner was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List by the U. S. Air Force. He was presented an identification card reflecting his rank as colonel. His identification card reflects that he was eligible for medical insurance. As a retired military person Petitioner was eligible for treatment at a military medical facility or through TRICARE. TRICARE is a comprehensive health insurance program for military personnel. TRICARE may be a primary provider or a secondary provider of health benefits. During his active employment with the state, however, the TRICARE coverage was secondary. This means that the state paid any claims to the extent of its policy limits and the remaining amount of any claim would be processed and paid in accordance with TRICARE coverage. Petitioner was aware that placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List was, as the name implied, a temporary situation. It was his expectation that subsequent to being placed on the list, the U. S. Air Force would determine either that he was disabled to the extent that he would receive disability retirement, and thus continue to be eligible for TRICARE, or that he would be denied disability retirement and would have to arrange for other medical insurance, or do without. During Petitioner's employment with the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, he was covered by the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan. On February 11, 2000, when Petitioner terminated his employment with the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, he was seeking to have the State of Florida declare him disabled. Pursuant to law, Petitioner's entitlement to the benefits of the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan continued until March 31, 2001. Without taking action to secure health insurance, Petitioner would have only TRICARE as an insurer. However, if the state determined him to have become disabled while employed by the state, he would be covered by the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, retroactively. On May 11, 2000, the Florida Division of Retirement denied Petitioner's application for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. The effect of this determination was to terminate the possibility of coverage under the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan with the reduced premiums available to a person on disability retirement. The Florida Department of Legal Affairs failed to immediately notify the Division that Petitioner had terminated his employment. As a result, the Division did not send Petitioner a Notice of Continuation Coverage Eligibility until immediately after to May 11, 2000. The notice informed Petitioner of his right to have family continuation coverage in return for a premium of $517.96. It further informed him that he had until July 11, 2000, to elect coverage which would be retroactive to April 1, 2000. A second Notice of Continuation Coverage Eligibility, dated May 22, 2000, was sent to Petitioner. This notice similarly informed Petitioner of his right to have family continuation coverage in return for a premium of $517.96 but informed him that he had until July 22, 2000, to elect coverage which would be retroactive to April 1, 2000. The second page of the Notice of Continuation Coverage Eligibility informed Petitioner, inter alia, that coverage would be available for 18 months for voluntary or involuntary termination, 29 months for certain disabled qualified beneficiaries, and 36 months for all other qualifying events. The second page also informed Petitioner that coverage might end on the occurrence of several events. The event asserted to be pertinent to this case is the date the insured becomes covered by another group health plan which does not contain any limitation or exclusion with respect to a pre- existing condition. Petitioner filed a "Continuation of Coverage Enrollment" form dated July 21, 2000. This form noted that the date of the event that precipitated eligibility for coverage was February 11, 2000. Petitioner wrote on the form in his own hand, "I am permanently and totally disabled; I and my dependents am covered under TRICARE at present." At the bottom of the "Continuation of Coverage Enrollment" form, the Division authorized coverage dating back to April 1, 2000. Petitioner sent the Division a check in the amount of $517.96 to cover the initial premium. The date on the check was July 21, 2000. Sometime prior to August 24, 2000, he sent the Division another premium payment in the amount of $517.96. At the time Petitioner filed the "Continuation of Coverage Enrollment" form and submitted the premiums, he was covered by the regular military medical system, because he was considered to be retired by the U.S. Air Force. However, since the question of his disability with the U.S. Air Force had not been decided, he was aware of the possibility that his military health coverage could end at any time. By maintaining a COBRA policy, he was insuring that he would not find himself in a posture where he had neither COBRA nor TRICARE. On August 16, 2000, the U.S. Air Force determined that Petitioner was disabled and was entitled to the medical care provided by law for retired service persons, which includes TRICARE, presumably, for life. It was at this point Petitioner demanded the return of the premium he paid. Petitioner's theory for the refund is that he was, under the law, ineligible for COBRA coverage during the two months that he paid a premium with respect to it. On September 29, 2000, in a letter signed by Ria Brown, Benefits Administrator, the Division reiterated its refusal to refund the premiums and noted that Petitioner was covered under COBRA for the period April 1, 2000, through May 31, 2000. The letter informed Petitioner that, "Based on the information in your letter, you are eligible and entitled for TRICARE Standard coverage, but you did not indicate that you are actually enrolled." Ms. Brown also advised the following: Coverage at time of COBRA event: Section 4980(f)(2)(B)(iv) provides that a qualified beneficiary's right to COBRA continuation coverage may be terminated when the qualified beneficiary "first becomes," after the date of the COBRA election, covered under another group health plan (subject to certain additional conditions) or entitled to Medicare benefits. The final regulations provide that an employer may cut off the right to COBRA continuation coverage based upon other group health plan coverage or entitlement to Medicare benefits only if the qualified beneficiary first becomes covered under the other group health plan coverage or entitled to the Medicare benefits after the date of the COBRA election. Petitioner asserted in a reply, also dated September 29, 2000, that contrary to Ms. Brown's assertion, he was actually enrolled in TRICARE Standard during the operative period. In a letter dated October 3, 2000, Merrill Moody, the Division Director, informed Petitioner that his claim for refund was being denied because he had a contractual relationship with the Division and that he got the product for which he paid-- health insurance coverage for April and May, 2000. Mr. Moody also pointed out that the Division was required under law to allow active employees and their covered dependents, to participate in COBRA, notwithstanding their participation in other programs.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of State Group Insurance enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of $1035.92. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 19th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Morris Shelkofsky 3721 Crawfordville Road, No. 17 Tallahassee, Florida 32310-7074 Cynthia Henderson, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, as beneficiary of her deceased father's State of Florida life insurance policy, is entitled to a benefit of $10,000 or $2,500, and is related to how notice of a change in coverage amount and premium was provided to the decedent.
Findings Of Fact At the time of his death on November 29, 2008, Maurice Adkins was covered by the state life insurance plan, as a retired employee of the State of Florida. The Petitioner, Justina Mullennix, is the daughter of Mr. Adkins and is the beneficiary of any life insurance benefits paid or payable from the state life insurance plan on account of the death of her father. Effective January 1, 2000, the coverage for retirees was increased to $10,000.00. The premium for this coverage was $4.20 per month. The DSGI prepared a letter dated July 31, 2006, to notify the retirees that effective January 1, 2007, the life insurance benefit options provided to retirees would change. The changes allowed retirees to elect one of the following options: $2,500 benefit for a monthly premium of $ 4.20. $10,000 benefit for a monthly premium of $35.79. Termination of coverage. The letter dated July 31, 2006, informed retirees that their life insurance premium would remain the same, but that their coverage would be reduced to $2,500, unless they elected coverage in the amount of $10,000 and elected to pay the higher premium. The letter advised the retirees they could change their election up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of the DSGI, maintains benefits data for the People First/Division of State Group Insurance. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and mailing addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. Mr. Waller created the file, prepared in July 2006, to use in a "mail merge," to send all retirees a copy of the letter dated July 31, 2006. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record that he maintained. In July 2006, the address of record for Mr. Adkins was 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207, and was included in the file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and on July 3, 2006, delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockeridge. Thomas Lockeridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of the DSGI. The DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes to mail the letter of July 31, 2006, to all retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the print shop of the DSGI, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing names and addresses of retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters dated July 31, 2006, in envelopes addressed to each retiree who carried life insurance at the time, were delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen. The State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Adkins at the Belair address. The return address on the envelope containing the letter was the Division of State Group Insurance, 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 215, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0949. The letter was not returned to the Division. The letters that were returned to the DSGI were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of the DSGI. Each letter that was returned to the Division of State Group Insurance was handled in one of two ways: a) if the envelope showed a different address on a yellow sticker applied by the US Postal Service (USPS), the letter was re-mailed to that address; b) if the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of the Division of Retirement was made, a copy of the print screen showing the address in the Retirement database was made, if different from that on the database of the Division of State Group Insurance, and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the Division of Retirement database. A copy of each Retirement screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. For every person whose letter was returned, and for which there was not another address, there would have been a Retirement print screen. The absence of a Retirement print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. There is no retirement print screen for Mr. Adkins, indicating that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to the DSGI. DMS has contracted with Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an on-line system known as “People First.” Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES). When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys People First System. People First became the system of record for the DSGI beginning January 1, 2005. People First and the Division of Retirement do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. Once a year the DSGI must hold Open Enrollment for the health program. § 110.123(3)(h)5, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 60P-1.003(16). Open Enrollment is the period designated by the DMS during which time eligible persons may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, the DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period, for the 2007 Plan Year, ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During open enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending open enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Adkins’s Open Enrollment Package to the 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 address, on September 3, 2006. The Open Enrollment Package for Plan Year 2007 was mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class postage paid. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins, for 2006 Open Enrollment, was not returned to People First. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Adkins’s 2007 Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of the DSGI; "Information of Note"; a Privacy Notice; Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and a 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included the following statement: Retiree Life Insurance For Plan Year 2007, those currently enrolled with retiree life insurance may elect to retain the current $4.20 premium for a benefit of $2,500, retain the current benefit of $10,000 for a premium of $35.79, or cancel coverage. If no change is made during open enrollment, participation will continue at the $4.20 premium level. Neither Mr. Adkins nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000.00 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 and 2007. Because the election was not made, at the death of Mr. Adkins, the benefit paid to the Petitioner was $2,500.00. Prior to January 1, 2007, the Life Insurance Trust Fund was used to augment the premiums paid by retirees for life insurance. The premium paid by the retirees did not support a $10,000 coverage level. In year 2006, the DSGI determined that the money in the life insurance trust fund, used to augment the retiree’s benefits from years 2000 through 2007, would not be available after 2007. Beginning January 1, 2007, the change in life insurance coverage was made because the funds in the Life Insurance Trust Fund were no longer available to augment the premium payment required to maintain a benefit level of $10,000.00, for a payment of $4.20 per month by the retirees. In 2006, the DSGI determined that the then-current life insurance premium of $4.20 would support a benefit of $2,500, and that the $10,000 benefits would cost $35.79. The notices provided by the July 31, 2006, letter and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package were sufficient notices of the increase in premium in that they provided a reasonable opportunity within which to make a selection of the level of coverage. On December 30, 1997, the Division of Retirement received a written notice of change of address for Mr. Adkins. The new address was 217 Skye Dr. W, Jacksonville, Florida 32221. Although Mr. Adkins had changed his address with the Division of Retirement, he did not notify the DSGI. A change of address with one division does not automatically change addresses in the other. The two divisions have different databases. During no time relevant to these proceedings have the two divisions shared databases. The DSGI, through People First, used the database of the Division of Retirement to send the 2004 Benefits Statement as an experiment to determine whether DSGI undeliverable returns would decrease. The same database was also used for the mailing of the letter dated September 2, 2003. However, neither DSGI nor People First changed its database after the 2004 Benefits Statement was sent and subsequent information was mailed to the DSGI address of record, based upon the COPES system. Therefore, the letter dated July 31, 2006, and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package for the Plan Year 2007, were mailed to the same Belair address, the address of record. A change of address for Mr. Adkins was not made in the database of the DSGI until December 1, 2008, when People First was provided a change of address. The only change of address that the Petitioner has alleged, was the one provided by Mr. Adkins to the Division of Retirement (only) in 1997.
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 of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Justina Mullennix 1217 Skye Drive West Jacksonville, Florida 32221 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Respondent is responsible to cover Petitioner's husband's medical claims as the primary payer from May 1, 2015, through July 1, 2016; and, if so, the amount Respondent would be required to cover.
Findings Of Fact In 1976, Petitioner became employed with the State of Florida. Since 1995, Petitioner and G.M. were insured under the State Employee's PPO Plan ("PPO Plan"). As a primary payer, the PPO Plan paid 100 percent of all claims incurred, subject to the payment schedule set forth in the PPO Plan. In 2007, G.M. became Medicare-eligible due to a disability. On October 1, 2007, he enrolled in Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B. On November 30, 2007, although he was eligible for Medicare Part B, Husband deferred enrollment in Medicare Part B and terminated Medicare Part B. On December 31, 2012, Petitioner retired from her employment with the State of Florida. During her employment and after retirement, Petitioner received the annual Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document booklets detailing the PPO Plan. Petitioner did not review the eligibility requirements for Medicaid Part B until 2015. The PPO Plans that were mailed to Petitioner in 2007, 2012, and 2015 all contained identical language on page 13-2, which stated "If the disabled dependent is your spouse, your spouse's coverage under this Plan will continue to be primary, paying benefits first, as long as you are an active employee." The PPO Plan coordination of benefits provision designates DSGI as the primary payer, which pays 100 percent of the benefits for a retiree or her spouse until the retiree or spouse becomes eligible for Medicare Part B. Once the retiree or spouse becomes Medicare-eligible, DSGI becomes the secondary payer and pays 20 percent of benefits, as Medicare-eligible participants are entitled to have 80 percent of their expenses covered by Medicare Part B. The PPO Plan also provides that DSGI will be the secondary payer even if the retiree or spouse is not enrolled in Medicare Part B. Petitioner and G.M. looked at plans annually during open enrollment. They needed health insurance because of G.M.'s health problems. Petitioner would call People First annually to confirm continuance of the PPO Plan because the McVays did not want to be changed to an HMO. From January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2015, Petitioner paid full premiums, which Respondent accepted, and Respondent paid all claims in full as the primary payer. In reliance on this coverage and the representation of Respondent through its actions and inactions, G.M. continued to defer his coverage through Medicare Part B. DSGI contracts Florida Blue as a third-party administrator. Florida Blue conducted a routine audit and discovered the error that Medicare Part B should have been the primary payer for Husband not Respondent. Husband's disability status had slipped through the system when Petitioner retired. On April 13, 2015, Florida Blue notified DSGI by email that G.M. was eligible for Medicare Part B due to disability. On or about April 30, 2015, Florida Blue notified Petitioner by letter of DSGI's intent to assume secondary payer status. The letter provided the audit results and stated: During a recent audit it was discovered that your h[u]sband is enrolled in Medicare Parts A & B and have been for quite some time. Therefore, Medicare should pay your claims as primary and your retiree health coverage will be your secondary coverage. Your current insurance premium will be reduced by $407.16 per month effective May 1, 2015, as described below. You are also due a refund of premium however you can only receive a refund for two years of overpayments. DSGI switched to secondary payer status and changed G.M.'s benefit level to Medicare II tier, effective May 1, 2015. Upon Respondent's discovery that Husband was Medicare- eligible, Respondent prospectively applied the coordination of benefits provision of the PPO Plan. The adjustment reduced Petitioner's premium payment to correspond with Respondent's status as a secondary payer. Additionally, Respondent refunded all amounts that Petitioner overpaid as a result of previously scheduled automatic deductions. As a secondary payer, the PPO Plan pays only 20 percent of all claims incurred. Upon DSGI's switch from primary payer, Petitioner and G.M. attempted to obtain Medicare Part B for G.M. but were not able to do so until the open enrollment period. As a result, G.M. was exposed to paying 80 percent of all claims that would have otherwise been paid by Medicare had he been enrolled in Medicare Part B. Petitioner and G.M. would have made alternative arrangements for health insurance coverage had they been informed that G.M.'s status would change their primary payer and they would have a lapse in coverage. Petitioner and Husband went to the Social Security Office several times in an attempt to get special enrollment but were unable to obtain coverage. Respondent's decision to drop coverage is not considered a qualifying event by Medicare for special enrollment. Petitioner and Husband also sought private brokers for coverage, but were not able to obtain insurance. For 14 months, May 1, 2015, through July 1, 2016, G.M. did not have a primary payer, only the PPO Plan as a secondary payer. In January 2016, Husband was able to enroll in Medicare Part B during open enrollment with coverage beginning on July 1, 2016. During the time G.M. was uncovered, he had several medical incidents, which incurred medical expenses. On April 4, 2016, the EMT transported Husband to the hospital after his defibrillator went off. Husband also was hospitalized at Aventura Hospital and Medical Center from December 22 through 24, 2015, when blood was seeping into his bone fracture of his left ankle. Husband received health statements ("statements"), Petitioner's Exhibit 12, from Florida Blue summarizing his medical expenses. Each statement contains the language in all capital letters "THIS IS NOT A BILL." The statements to which the Medicare primary was denied also provided language "Resubmit with EOMB." The statements, which indicated a network provider was utilized, also stated, "Therefore no patient responsibility." For the December 2015 hospital stay, claim 8288, the billing statement designates $30,402.03 is owed. However, the statement provides Medicare had not processed the claim. It also states "THIS IS NOT A BILL." Each statement also designated out-of-pocket amounts of $0.00 or indicated that a network provider was used and eliminated member debt by stating "no patient responsibility." Petitioner appealed Respondent's decision to terminate Husband's coverage. She seeks reimbursement for medical expenses G.M. incurred during the 14-month period when the PPO Plan was the secondary payer and G.M. was not enrolled in Medicare Part B from May 1, 2015, through July 1, 2016. Both Petitioner's Level I and Level II appeals were denied because DSGI maintains the termination was proper based on the language of the PPO Plan. Petitioner initially sought relief through extension coverage until Husband would be covered by Medicare Part B. Once the case was transferred to DOAH, Petitioner sought damages in the amount of health-related expenses incurred by Petitioner from the date of DSGI's termination of G.M.'s primary coverage. At the final hearing, Jessica Bonin ("Bonin"), a 12-year employee of Florida Blue who handles appeals and processes PPO Plan payments, explained the provisions of the PPO Plan coordination of benefits. She testified that the PPO Plan pays benefits based on the allowed amount, which represents the rate negotiated between Florida Blue and a network provider. When calculating amounts that are covered under the terms of the PPO Plan, the deductible, coinsurance, and amount allowed for each claim have to be applied. Therefore, not all charges billed by a provider will count toward the deductible or coinsurance maximum or be reimbursed after the deductible or coinsurance maximum is reached when calculating medical expenses. Bonin calculated G.M.'s medical expenses in Respondent's Exhibit 18 and concluded that DSGI owed Petitioner $80.04 for a claim incurred on or about June 11, 2015. The reimbursement amount of $80.04 represents the amount the PPO Plan covers as secondary payer. At hearing, DSGI also stipulated to another reimbursement in the amount of $18.03. Husband testified he was seeking reimbursement for the entire amount of the combined statements regardless of whether charges were covered by Medicare or the PPO Plan's payment schedule. He totaled the statements from the health care providers at $47,056.56. G.M. also testified he did not know what monies were due on what bills. G.M. specifically requested the $30,401.03 for the inpatient hospitalization at Aventura in December 2015. He clarified that the bill that he received from Aventura was $3,455.72. Medicare Part A, in which G.M. was enrolled at all times relevant to this matter, covers inpatient hospital expenses. To date, G.M. has paid $4,415.19 out-of-pocket for medical expenses. Petitioner failed to provide competent evidence to demonstrate a reimbursable amount for G.M.'s medical expenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order denying the Petition and finding that Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for Husband's medical expenses in the amount of $98.07. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 31st day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issues concern the question of Petitioner's responsibility to pay additional insurance premiums related to Family I coverage in the State Employees' Group Health Insurance program for the period February 1981 through April 1982, based upon alleged underpayments of required premiums. See Section 110.123, Florida Statutes and Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact According to the Florida law which has application in this dispute, when a husband and wife were employed by separate agencies of the State of Florida, cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan was defrayed by those state agencies. This is as contrasted with the circumstance in which one spouse would be responsible for contributing to the cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan, should the second spouse cease to be employed by the second state agency. The State of Florida, Department of Administration, has she responsibility for administering the State Group Health Insurance Plan, to include collection of necessary premium payments. Both Petitioner and his wife had been reported in the records of the Department of Administration as employed by the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services respectively, as employees entitled to participate in the spouse program for payment of health care, i.e., the program in which no contribution is made by the employees toward payment of health insurance premiums. On October 28, 1982, the Petitioner informed the Department of Administration on a form provided by the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration that his wife, Caroline Wilson, had terminated her employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services effective March 23, 1982. This form was executed in cooperation with the Petitioner's employing agency. The second part of the form related to information to be provided by the wife and her employing agency on the question of her employment was not completed by the spouse nor signed off by her employing agency. A copy of this item or form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. As a result of information he provided, Petitioner was informed of an underpayment of premiums for the period May 1982 through November 1982, related to his wife's lack of eligibility for contribution from her employing agency and the responsibility of the Petitioner to substitute as payor of those premiums. This referred to the point of departure identified by the Petitioner allowing for a grace month of April 1982, thereby making the period of underpayment May 1982 through November 1982. The amount of nonpayment was $280.06, which was eventually reimbursed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, in January 1984, Respondent, Bureau of Insurance, in an attempt to ascertain why Health and Rehabilitative Services had not contributed the full amount of its share to the insurance related to Caroline P. Wilson in times before March 23, 1982, discovered that the wife, Caroline P. Wilson, had terminated her employment some time before March 23, 1982. As was revealed in the final hearing, the last day of employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services was January 3, 1981. After that date, Mrs. Wilson did not return to her job at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, and was eventually considered to have abandoned that job. (It was the first impression of the Department of Administration that she had last been employed in December 1980 and as a consequence this case pertains to the claim of the Department of Administration that there is an underpayment related to the family coverage which starts on February 1, 1981 and runs until April 1, 1982, allowing for a credit of overpayment in the amount of $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total claimed of $382.64. It is this amount that Petitioner took issue with and requested a timely formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes' hearing to resolve.) Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the date from which the responsibility of the husband to contribute the premiums share no longer being provided by Health and Rehabilitative Services would be January 1981, as opposed to December 1980. Allowing for the grace month of February 1981, the payments would be due for March 1, 1981, through April 1, 1982, allowing credit again for the $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total due and owing in the way of underpayment of $353.90.
The Issue Whether Petitioner timely notified Respondent, Division of State Group Insurance of a "qualifying status change" (QSC) event, so as to allow Petitioner to cancel her participation in the State Group Health Insurance Program during the Plan Year- 2006. Petitioner seeks a refund of amounts deducted/paid because her insurance was continued.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a covered participant in the Program, authorized by Section 110.123, Florida Statutes, at all times material. As provided in Section 110.123(3)(c), Florida Statutes, Respondent DMS, through its administrative entity, DSGI, is responsible for contract management and day-to-day administration of the Program. DMS has contracted with Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services including assisting in the administration of the Program. Convergys performs these tasks in part through an on-line system known as "People First." However, as provided in Section 110.123(5), Florida Statutes, final decisions concerning the existence of coverage or covered benefits under the Program are not delegated, or deemed to have been delegated, by DMS. Section 110.161, Florida Statutes, requires DSGI, as the responsible administrative entity, to administer the Program consistent with Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code, so that participants will obtain the pre-tax advantages provided by Section 125. One of the federal requirements to maintain the pre-tax status is that the plan's sponsor (e.g., the State of Florida) administer the plans and apply each plan's rules in a manner that does not discriminate and that treats all participants equally. In this case, Petitioner was enrolled in the Health Program Plan Year 2006, i.e. from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Allowing a Plan member to retroactively cancel her participation during a Plan Year without having properly reported a QSC could put the entire pre-tax program in jeopardy. A QSC is a change in status as listed in the Plan which would allow an employee to cancel or otherwise change participation in the Plan during the Plan Year if requested by the employee within 31 days of the change in status. Converting from full-time to part-time state employment is a QSC event. On April 21, 2006, Petitioner converted from full-time employee status to part-time employee status. Therefore, the QSC event in this case occurred on April 21, 2006, when Petitioner went from being a full-time to a part-time employee. However, in order to effect a change in health insurance coverage, Petitioner was required to request a change in health insurance coverage no later than May 22, 2006. To request a change in health insurance coverage, Petitioner would have needed to contact Convergys in a timely manner, i.e. within 31 days of April 21, 2006. For People First, Convergys maintains a tracking system known as "Siebel," which tracks written correspondence to or from state employees and notes telephone calls between state employees and Convergys associates. Standard business procedure for Convergys is that the telephone logs are not verbatim notations of the conversations, but are a summary of those conversations, including a description of the reason for the call and the action taken by any Convergys associate that took the call. The Convergys policy is that all calls are to be notated. All service associates are trained to note all calls. Convergys employees are trained to make the call notes during the telephone conversation or soon thereafter. A notation is to be made by the Convergys employee in the Siebel system, and a case is opened when the service representative cannot assist the caller or when further action is required. The case notes are also to be recorded in the system. None of the People First, DGS/DGSI, or Convergys records reflect any contact by Petitioner within the 31 days following April 21, 2006, although they reflect several later contacts concerning her complaint that her coverage was not timely cancelled. Petitioner testified that she used her sister's cell phone to telephone People First "after two or three weeks" and that she discussed cancellation of her participation in the state insurance program and flirted with the Black male who answered the phone, but who seemed not to have much experience in the cancellation process. Petitioner was not able to provide the name or position of the person with whom she allegedly spoke or the date or time of her telephone call. The fact that Petitioner testified that she knew that she "had to around the middle or so" of the month to request her change of coverage, illustrates Petitioner's rather loose interpretation of when this alleged call occurred. Petitioner presented no witness or documentation to corroborate her testimony that she had received oral assurances during that phone call to the effect that the change she requested had been completed through People First. Petitioner's representation that the telephone company could not get the phone records of this telephone call due to the passage of time is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order ratifying its October 13, 2006, denial of Petitioner's requested retroactive cancellation of enrollment in the State Group Health Insurance Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 19th day of July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ericka L. Ledbetter 739 South Shelfer Stree Quincy, Florida 32351 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John J. Matthews, Director Department of Management Services Division of State Group Insurance 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0949
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Administration, enter a Final Order that Petitioner, Marvin Brownlee, is owed a total of $158.56 under the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Insurance Program consisting of $126.08 of expenditures previously conceded to be eligible coverage but not yet paid, plus $32.48 of expenditures for bed underpads or chucks determined after final hearing to be covered. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-0806 Rulings On Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. No items before the effective date of the State's self-insurance program, May 1, 1978, were found to be covered. Covered by Findings 2 through 6. Rulings On Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1-2. Covered by Finding 1. Covered by Finding 7. 4-6. To the extent necessary and relevant, covered by Findings 8 through 11. Rejected as not supported by the totality of the evidence; covered by Findings 2 through 6. Covered by Finding 6. Covered by Findings 3 through 6. Covered by Findings 2 and 5. Second sentence specifically rejected as not supported by the totality of the evidence. As found, the specific use of the underpads is to catch and absorb Brownlee's excrement. But they are part of an overall method for control of Brownlee's bowels and, as such, aid in his physical well-being. See Conclusion 3. Rejected. First, it is unnecessary to recite the agency's preliminary decision. Second, there was no evidence of the qualifications of the persons determining that the underpads are not "medically necessary." Third, the determination is not supported by the totality of the evidence. See Findings 2 and 5. (The part on prescription drugs is covered by Findings 3 through 6 and 10.) COPIES FURNISHED: Marvin Brownlee Route 3, Box 581 Havana, Florida 32333 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
