The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Robbie Reynolds, is eligible for family medical insurance coverage for medical expenses incurred by the Petitioner's son?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner, Robbie W. Reynolds, was an employee of Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is responsible for managing the State's employee health insurance system. Participation in the State of Florida Health Insurance Plan. The State of Florida makes health insurance available to its employees (hereinafter referred to as the "State Health Plan"). Employees may choose health insurance through the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan or through various health maintenance organizations (hereinafter referred to as "HMOs"). The Division has promulgated Chapter 60P, Florida Administrative Code, regulating the State Health Plan. Employees pay part of the premiums for their health insurance and the State contributes a part of the cost of premiums. The amount of premiums paid by an employee and the State depends on the type of coverage selected. Employees may elect coverage only for themselves ("individual" coverage), or coverage for themselves and certain qualified dependents ("family" coverage). Female employees who elect individual coverage are eligible for the payment of maternity or pregnancy benefits. Included in these benefits are certain benefits for the newborn child referred to as "well-baby care." In order for medical expenses attributable solely to a newborn baby that is ill at or after birth to be covered by the State Health Plan, an employee must elect family coverage for the employee and the child. The family coverage must be effective as of the date the medical expenses are incurred for the child. Open Enrollment Periods. Once an employee selects the type of health insurance he or she desires, that employee generally may change the election only during certain designated periods of time, referred to as "open enrollment periods." During an open enrollment period, an employee may change from HMO coverage to the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan, or vice versa, may change from individual coverage to family coverage, or vice versa, and may add or delete dependents to the employee's family coverage. Changes to an employees' State Health Plan coverage made during an open enrollment period are effective for the calendar year immediately following the open enrollment period. Other Changes in Health Insurance Coverage. An exception to the requirement of the State Health Plan that changes in coverage only be made during an open enrollment period is provided for certain specified events, referred to as "qualifying events." The acquisition of an "eligible dependent" during a year may constitute a qualifying event. For example, if an employee marries, the employee may elect family coverage for himself or herself and the employee's spouse. A change from individual coverage to family coverage may also be made if an employee or an employee's spouse gives birth to a child. The change to family coverage as a result of marriage or the birth of a child must be made within thirty-one days after the eligible dependent is acquired. An employee may also elect family coverage as a result of the employee or the employee's spouse becoming pregnant. If the employee or employee's spouse elects family coverage in time for the family coverage to be effective at the time of the child's birth, the child may then be added as a dependent to the family coverage by notifying the Division of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the child is born. In order to change to family coverage when an employee or employee's spouse becomes pregnant, the employee, must apply for the change to family coverage in time for the employee to make a month's premium payment on the first day of at least the month during which the child is born or an earlier month. For example, if an employee elects to change from individual coverage to family coverage for a yet to be born child in July effective for September, the first full month's premium is paid on September 1, and the child is born on September 2, the employee has family coverage for all of September and the child will be covered if the Division is notified of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the date of birth. In order for an employee to make a change in coverage as the result of a qualifying event, the employee must file a Change of Information form with the employee's personnel office. The personnel office forwards the form to the Division. Ms. Reynolds' Health Insurance. Ms. Reynolds, as an employee of the State of Florida, was eligible for state health insurance. She elected to participate in the HMO that was available in the Gainesville area where she is employed. AvMed is the name of the HMO for the Gainesville area and Ms. Reynolds' insurer. Although married, Ms. Reynolds initially elected individual coverage. Ms. Reynolds did not elect family coverage for her husband because he received health insurance benefits from his employer. During 1992, Ms. Reynolds became pregnant. The baby's projected due date was April 15, 1993. The Open Enrollment Period for 1993. The open enrollment period for the next calendar year (1993) after Ms. Reynolds became pregnant took place in October of 1992. During the October 1992 open enrollment period the Department of Corrections, through its personnel office, conducted meetings with employees to discuss health care benefits and coverage available to its employees. Two benefits consultants, trained by the Division, conducted the meetings, providing information to, and answering questions from, employees concerning the open enrollment period. Ms. Reynolds, who was approximately three months pregnant at the time of the benefit consultation meetings, attended one of the sessions. Ms. Reynolds attended the session for the purpose of determining what steps she should take to insure that her yet-to-be-born infant was covered by health insurance. Ms. Reynolds spoke for some time with Gail Page and Jordaina Chambers, benefits consultants of the Department of Corrections. Ms. Reynolds informed the benefits consultants that she was pregnant and that she wanted to insure that her yet-to-be-born infant was covered by her health insurance. Ms. Reynolds was incorrectly told that she could not elect family coverage for just her and her yet-to-be-born infant. This incorrect advice, however, did not have any effect on the effective date Ms. Reynolds ultimately decided to begin her family coverage. Ms. Reynolds also informed the benefits consultants that the baby was due April 15, 1993. The benefits consultants informed Ms. Reynolds that her pregnancy constituted a qualifying event and that she could, therefore, switch to family coverage in order to cover her baby. She was also informed that she would have to notify the Division of her child's birth with thirty-one days after birth to add the child to the policy. After being told that she would have to switch her coverage from individual coverage to family coverage, adding her husband as a dependent, Ms. Reynolds asked the benefits consultants when she should switch to family coverage. Consistent with the policies of the Division, and the training the benefits consultants had received from the Division, the benefits consultants advised Ms. Reynolds that she should elect family coverage effective two or three months prior to her due date. The Division makes this recommendation so that employees can save the increased premiums for family coverage a reasonable period of time before the child is born. In light of the fact that Ms. Reynolds' conversation with the benefits consultants took place during the 1992 open enrollment period and the fact that January 1, 1993 was three and one-half months prior to Ms. Reynolds' due date, Ms. Reynolds was advised by the benefits consultants that it would be reasonable to switch from individual coverage to family coverage through the open enrollment period. Based upon this advice, Ms. Reynolds' family coverage would be effective January 1, 1993. The benefits consultants did not advise Ms. Reynolds of any possible consequences of not electing to switch from individual coverage to family coverage with an effective date prior to January 1, 1993. The benefits consultants also did not tell Ms. Reynolds that she could not choose to switch from her individual coverage to family coverage with an effective date prior to January 1, 1993. On or about October 15, 1992, Ms. Reynolds executed and filed with the Division an Annual Benefit Election Form. Respondent's exhibit 1. Pursuant to this form Ms. Reynolds elected to change her health insurance coverage from individual to family effective January 1, 1993. Ms. Reynolds elected to add her husband as a covered dependent. Based upon the election made by Ms. Reynolds, her family coverage became effective on January 1, 1993. If her child was born before that date, any expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child would not covered by Ms. Reynolds' medical coverage. If the child was born on or after that date and Ms. Reynolds notified the Division of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the child's birth, any expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child would be covered by Ms. Reynolds' medical coverage. The evidence failed to prove that the advice given by the benefits consultants in October 1992 was not reasonable based upon the information available to them and to Ms. Reynolds. The evidence also failed to prove that either the benefits consultants or Ms. Reynolds unreasonably failed to realize that the child would be born more than three and one-half months premature. Ms. Reynolds, while reasonably relying on the advice of the benefits consultants, knew or should have known that the ultimate decision as to when to begin family coverage was hers to make. Ms. Reynolds also should have been somewhat wary of the advice she was given, in light of the fact that Ms. Reynolds admitted that she was told by the benefits consultants that they "did not know that much about what she was asking." Despite this warning, Ms. Reynolds testified during the final hearing that she followed their advice because she felt there was "no reason to believe they would be wrong." The Premature Birth of the Reynolds' Child. On December 29, 1992, Ms. Reynolds underwent surgery, due to unforeseen medical complications, to deliver her child. The child died on January 1, 1993. In order to add the child as a dependent to her medical insurance when the child was born, Ms. Reynolds had to have family coverage in effect as of December 1, 1992 or earlier. Unfortunately for Ms. Reynolds, on December 29, 1992 when her child was born, Ms. Reynolds only had individual coverage. The rules governing medical benefits of state employees do not allow employees with individual coverage to add dependents. Therefore, even though Ms. Reynolds attempted to get the Division, through the personnel office of the Department of Corrections, to add her child by notifying the personnel office of the birth of the child immediately after December 29, 1993, the child could not be added to her individual coverage. The child received medical services and incurred medical expenses between December 29, 1992 and January 1, 1993. Those expenses were not covered by the well-baby care provided by Ms. Reynolds' individual coverage. Because Ms. Reynolds did not have family coverage at the time the child was born and the child could not be added to her individual coverage, the medical expenses incurred for the child were not covered by Ms. Reynolds' health insurance. Although the child should be added as a dependent to Ms. Reynolds family coverage which took effect as of January 1, 1993, the evidence failed to prove that any medical expenses incurred for the care of the child on January 1, 1993, were not attributable to a preexisting condition. Therefore, expenses incurred for the care of the child on January 1, 1993, are not eligible for reimbursement. Should the Division be Estopped from Denying Coverage? The Division relies on benefits consultants to assist the Division in administering the State Health Plan. Benefits consultants are trained by the Division, they are state employees and they hold themselves out as representing the State in general and the Division in particular. The Division's rules provide for the active involvement of the various personnel offices in administering the State Health Plan. See, Rule 60P- 2.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Annual Benefit Election Forms issued by the Division during the open enrollment specifically provide that the forms are to be turned in to employees' personnel offices. The Division allows personnel offices of the various state agencies to hold themselves out to employees as agents of the Division. In this case, Ms. Reynolds was given advice by benefits consultants, on behalf of the Division and consistent with Division policy, which played a role in Ms. Reynolds making a decision which resulted in medical expenses incurred upon the premature birth of her child not being covered by her medical insurance. While Ms. Reynolds was given some incorrect advice, she was not given incorrect advice concerning the effective date of her family coverage. The advice given to Ms. Reynolds concerning when to start her family coverage was reasonable at the time given and, as she admitted during the hearing, there was no reason in October of 1992 to doubt the wisdom of the advice she received. Ultimately, it was Ms. Reynolds decision. While she may not have understood that advice, she made the decision to make choices and act on the advice even after being warned that the benefits consultants were not knowledgeable about what she was asking.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Robbie W. Reynolds' petition in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3731 The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ms. Reynolds did not file a proposed recommended order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 2-3 and 19. Accepted in 4-5, 9 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 6 and 9. Accepted in 11-17. Accepted in 7-8. Accepted in 1 and 18-19. Accepted in 23-26. Accepted in 20, 28 and 30-32. But See 27-20. See 29-30. But see 27. Accepted in 34 and 38. See 40. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 40-41 COPIES FURNISHED: Robbie W. Reynolds 2635 South West 35th Place, #1304 Gainesville, Florida 32608 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. Chief of Bureau of Benefits and Legal Services Division of State Employees' Insurance Department of Management Services 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4876 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact HSH No. 2 is a six-bed assisted living facility. It provides services to individuals with mental deficits and/or psychiatric issues. HSH No. 2 is located at 20700 Southwest 122nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. After a settlement agreement with AHCA, South Dade was allowed to submit a CHOW to purchase HSH No. 2 from the prior owner. South Dade became the legal owner of HSH No. 2 on December 28, 2005. Prior to obtaining initial licensure from AHCA, South Dade was required to provide AHCA with proof of liability insurance. Liability insurance coverage is for the protection of residents at the assisted living facility in case of injury or death. Without liability insurance, a resident injured at a facility would have no recourse if he/she was harmed or injured in any way. AHCA, not the facility, is listed on each facility’s certificate of insurance as the certificate holder. Additionally, the address of AHCA’s licensure department is listed on each facility’s certificate of insurance in order that AHCA will be notified in the instance of a lapse of insurance coverage. South Dade provided proof of liability insurance to AHCA on October 17, 2005, for the period of September 23, 2005, through September 23, 2006. South Dade obtained the liability coverage from an insurance company in Miami, Florida. Having obtained liability insurance and having provided proof of liability insurance, South Dade obtained licensure from AHCA. South Dade was eventually issued a standard biennial license by AHCA for the period of December 28, 2007, through December 27, 2009. South Dade was the licensee. On September 4, 2007, South Dade, as a corporation, was administratively dissolved due to its failure to file its annual report as required by law. At the time, South Dade was 100 percent owned by Larazo Martinez. South Dade does not dispute that Mr. Martinez allowed the dissolution of South Dade in order for Natalie Egea, who had recently become HSH No. 2’s administrator, to gain ownership of HSH No. 2.1 South Dade continued to carry-on business, as HSH No.2, even though it (South Dade) was administratively dissolved. South Dade’s corporate status was reinstated on May 11, 2009, over two years after its dissolution. Mr. Martinez was listed as the only officer, i.e., president. Instead of applying for a CHOW to begin the process of new ownership of HSH No. 2, an application for renewal of the license was submitted to AHCA. An application for licensure renewal was filed on November 13, 2007, with AHCA. Only South Dade, as the licensee, could apply for renewal of the license. Ms. Egea completed the application for the licensure renewal. She listed Mr. Martinez, the individual, as the owner of HSH No. 2, not South Dade, the corporation. Furthermore, she indicated that the applicant was an individual, not a corporation. Ms. Egea was aware that there was a difference between South Dade, the corporation, and Mr. Martinez, the individual, owning HSH No. 2.2 After receiving the renewal application, AHCA sent a letter dated December 6, 2007, by certified mail, return receipt, to Ms. Egea, as the administrator of HSH No. 2, advising her, among other things, that the application omitted several documents and was, therefore, incomplete; that the liability insurance for HSH No. 2 had expired; and that proof of current liability insurance coverage needed to be provided. Further, the letter advised Ms. Egea that, in several items on one of the forms, she listed herself as the owner of the facility, but, on another document, she listed Mr. Martinez as the owner of the facility and listed herself as the administrator. By letter dated December 20, 2007, Ms. Egea responded to AHCA’s letter dated December 6, 2007, and, among other things, provided the omitted documents and corrected the documents referring to the owner of HSH No. 2 to reflect Mr. Martinez as the owner. Furthermore, Ms. Egea advised AHCA that the facility was having difficulty in obtaining liability insurance coverage. The evidence demonstrates that, when Ms. Egea filed the renewal application, the intent in the application process was to change the ownership of HSH No. 2 to Mr. Martinez, and, eventually, to herself. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Egea considered Mr. Martinez as owning HSH No. 2, even though AHCA’s licensure documents showed South Dade as owning HSH No. 2 and as the licensee. AHCA issued South Dade a conditional license for the period December 28, 2007, through February 27, 2008, pending proof of liability insurance coverage. Through the issuance of a license to an assisted living facility, AHCA is guaranteeing to the public that that facility is in compliance with all the requirements set by AHCA. But through the issuance of a conditional license, AHCA is putting the public on notice that there are outstanding conditions of licensure that the facility has not met. Even though AHCA renewed the license in the name of South Dade, the application should have been considered a CHOW. AHCA mistakenly treated the application as a renewal, instead of a CHOW. The renewal application was in actuality an application for licensure by an individual, not previously licensed by AHCA. As a result, the application was a CHOW, not a renewal application for licensure. When a facility’s liability insurance coverage expires, the facility is required to provide AHCA with proof of a renewal policy or proof of a new policy. At the expiration of its liability insurance on September 23, 2006, South Dade was unable to immediately renew its liability insurance or obtain new liability insurance from companies in Miami. South Dade blamed the recent hurricanes in the South Florida area as causing insurance companies to become reluctant to issue new liability insurance policies. However, AHCA was the agency licensing and renewing the licensure of assisted living facilities in the entire State of Florida; but AHCA was not aware of any other assisted living facilities in the South Florida area having such difficulty. The undersigned does not find the reason put forth by South Dade for the difficulty in obtaining liability insurance coverage as a plausible reason. AHCA sent a notice of violation (NOV) dated December 4, 2007, by certified mail, return receipt, to Ms. Egea, as the administrator, for the lapse of liability insurance coverage. The NOV, among other things, requested proof of current liability insurance within ten days and indicated, among other things, that the failure to comply could result in an administrative proceeding to revoke the license or deny licensure. AHCA’s interpretation of the ten-day period is the maximum amount of time that a facility has to provide evidence to AHCA that it has current liability insurance and that there has not been a lapse and, therefore, no violation. AHCA’s interpretation is found to be reasonable. South Dade failed to provide proof of insurance within the ten-day period or during the month of December 2007. A second NOV dated January 2, 2008, was sent by certified mail, return receipt, to Ms. Egea, as the administrator, for the failure to have liability insurance coverage. The second NOV also requested proof of current liability insurance within ten days and indicated, among other things, that the failure to comply could result in an administrative proceeding to revoke the license or deny licensure. South Dade was finally able to obtain liability insurance coverage, effective January 2, 2008, through January 2, 2009. AHCA was provided proof of the coverage. However, approximately three months later, the liability insurance coverage was canceled, effective March 24, 2008, for non-payment of premium. Notification of the canceled liability insurance coverage was faxed to AHCA on July 17, 2008. AHCA sent a NOV dated July 18, 2008, the next day by certified mail, return receipt, to Ms. Egea, as the administrator, for the failure to have liability insurance coverage. The NOV also requested proof of current liability insurance within 21 days and indicated, among other things, that the failure to comply could result in an administrative proceeding to revoke the license or deny licensure. AHCA states that the purpose of the NOV dated July 18, 2008, was to make certain that there was no lapse in the policy providing liability insurance coverage, not to provide South Dade a time frame in which to purchase the required liability insurance coverage. The purpose stated by AHCA is found to be reasonable. South Dade received the NOV dated July 18, 2008, on July 23, 2008. South Dade obtained liability insurance coverage on August 12, 2008, effective August 12, 2008, through August 12, 2009. The usual procedure of the insurance agent from whom South Dade obtained the liability insurance coverage was to mail the Certificate of Liability Insurance to both the insured and AHCA when the insurance carrier approves and binds coverage. A finding of fact is made that the insurance agent followed the same procedure in the instant case. On November 3, 2008, AHCA issued its Administrative Complaint charging South Dade, among other things, with failure to maintain liability insurance coverage. After receiving the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Egea contacted the insurance agent regarding the Certificate of Liability Insurance. The insurance agent reiterated to Ms. Egea that the Certificate of Liability Insurance was mailed to AHCA in August 2008. On November 5, 2008, AHCA received the Certificate of Liability Insurance, as proof of insurance, when it was faxed to AHCA by the insurance agent. Also, the liability insurance policy, effective August 12, 2008, had a different policy number than the last liability insurance policy. The different policy number indicated that the liability insurance coverage effective on August 12, 2008, was a new, not a renewal, policy.3 South Dade was without liability insurance coverage from March 24, 2008, until August 12, 2008, when liability insurance coverage was obtained. South Dade failed to maintain continuous liability insurance coverage from March 24, 2008, to August 11, 2008. South Dade had a lapse in liability insurance coverage from March 24, 2008, to August 11, 2008. No evidence was presented to show that any resident was harmed in any form or manner at HSH No. 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order: Finding that South Dade Elderly Care Corporation, d/b/a Home Sweet Home No. 2, committed the offenses set forth in Counts I, II, and III in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Revoking the license of South Dade Elderly Care Corporation, d/b/a Home Sweet Home No. 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 3rd day of May, 2010.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's insurance agent licenses as, Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), and Health (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner was created in accordance with Section 20.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been conferred general power by the Legislature, to regulate the insurance industry in Florida, in accordance with Section 624.307, Florida Statutes. Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. Petitioner issued Respondent license No. A140590. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent has been licensed in Florida as agent for insurance in Life (2-16), and Life and Health (2-18). On December 2, 1992, Respondent had been issued a Health (2-40) license, but that license is no longer valid having been voluntarily cancelled. The cancellation occurred at a time previous to December 18, 2003, when a license history document was prepared, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. Respondent conducts business as an insurance agent under the name Business Insurance Cafeteria. The business is located at 828 Hamilton Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida. Respondent has been licensed as an insurance agent for over 50 years, 44 years of which have been in Florida. Acting as an insurance agent has been Respondent's principal occupation. During that time the emphasis in his business has been on health insurance. TRG Affiliation In April 2001, an acquaintance and insurance agent Ellen Averill introduced Respondent to Robert Trueblood, Sr. Respondent understood that Mr. Trueblood was the Managing General Agent for TRG. Mr. Trueblood, at the time, was from Hobe Sound, Florida. Mr. Trueblood gave information to Respondent about TRG pertaining to its involvement in the insurance business. Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that individuals within TRG were personal friends of Mr. Trueblood. In turn, Respondent made a call to Petitioner at the end of April or first part of May 2001. Someone that he spoke to, whose identity and position within the Petitioner's hierarchy was not established in the record, made a comment which cannot be established as fact given its hearsay nature. Nonetheless, following this conversation, Respondent became affiliated with the TRG organization which Respondent understood to be an ERISA program, not subject to Petitioner's oversight. At that time, Respondent's knowledge of what an ERISA program entailed was based upon reading he had done in the past. Respondent was of the impression that the ERISA program was under the auspices of the federal government, as opposed to the state government. Respondent had never taken specific courses concerning the ERISA program before his engagement with TRG. Respondent's involvement with TRG was his first effort to market what he considered to be ERISA program insurance. When Respondent commenced his participation with TRG, he believed that an ERISA program was instituted by a document filed with the Department of Labor outlining insurance benefits and that TRG had put up reserves associated with the ERISA program. Respondent did not obtain anything in writing from the Department of Labor concerning TRG as an ERISA program. To begin with, Respondent believed that ERISAs had to involve 51 or more lives in being before coverage could be obtained. Again, this was not a market that Respondent had worked in but he understood that ERISAs involved coverage of that number of individuals. From conversations with Mr. Trueblood and Tom Dougherty, another managing General Agent for TRG, of Cocoa Beach, Florida, Respondent became persuaded that ERISAs could be marketed to companies with a single life being insured or two to three lives in a small group market. Respondent relied on Mr. Trueblood when Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that ERISA, as a federal program did not have to be licensed by the state. Mr. Dougherty made a similar comment to Respondent. Ms. Averill also commented to Respondent concerning her impression about TRG as an ERISA program. From this record, Respondent was not officially told by persons within the Petitioner's agency, that the TRG program was an ERISA program that did not have to be licensed in Florida. TRG provided Respondent marketing material. Respondent was impressed with the "very professional" appearance of that material. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 admitted into evidence is constituted of material provided to Respondent by TRG. It refers to the TRG health plan under "the Redwood Group." It refers to marketing under an organization identified as Premier Financial Group USA, Inc. It describes PPO networks available with the TRG products. The document refers to the TRG/USA health plan (the Redwood Group, L.L.C./USA Services Group, Inc.) and various versions of employer health and welfare benefit plans and a client fee schedule effective May 1, 2001, for enrollees in the 80/60 plan and 90/70 plan. Participant co- pays for physician office visits are related. Those plans identified in the material describe the amount of deductibles according to age groups and participation by members and additional family participants. The TRG document speaks of benefits attributable to the 80/60 and 90/70 health plans. This information contained comments about the Redwood Companies- Corporate Overview. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 comments upon the ERISA program and the provision of health benefits for employees through self-funded employee health and welfare benefit plans as a means, according to the document, to exempt those plans from state insurance regulation. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 touts what it claims are savings to be derived compared to current health insurance plans held by prospective purchasers. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an associate application agreement setting forth policies and procedures that Respondent would be obligated to meet as an associate with TRG acting as an independent contractor. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an application format for prospective enrollees in the TRG preferred provider plans to execute in applying for coverage. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 refers to Robert W. Trueblood, Sr., as being affiliated with Premier Financial Group, USA Inc., under the TRG banner. Mr. Trueblood sent Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 to Respondent. Respondent began his contacts with TRG in May 2001 and wrote his first enrollment contract in association with TRG in August or September 2001. Beyond that time, Respondent was notified on November 27, 2001, that effective November 30, 2001, a cease and desist order had been issued against TRG's offering its health coverage in Florida. The commissions earned by Respondent in selling the TRG health insurance product ranged from five to seven percent. Respondent earned less than $1,000.00 in total commissions when selling TRG health insurance products. The persons who participated with TRG in its preferred provider plan were referred to the claims administrator of USA Services. Participants in the TRG preferred provider plan sold by Respondent received information outlining the benefits. Participants received medical I.D. cards. This information was provided directly to the participants. Respondent was aware of the information provided to the participants. An example of this information is set out in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2. In offering the TRG health coverage, Respondent told his customers that this plan was not under the purview of the Department of Insurance in Florida, that this was an ERISA program. Respondent told his customers that any problems experienced with the program could be addressed through resort to the federal court. Respondent did remind the customers that making the Florida Department of Insurance aware of their claims could create a record in case they went to federal court. Respondent is familiar with the prohibition against acting as an insurance agent for companies not authorized to transact business in Florida. But he held to the opinion that TRG was an ERISA program under the federal auspices and not subject to Petitioner's control. At the inception, Respondent believed that offering the TRG health insurance coverage would be an acceptable choice. That proved not to be true. When it was discovered that TRG would not pay claims related to health coverage for policies Respondent sold to his customers, Respondent made an attempt to find replacement coverage. To this end, Respondent had received information reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 5. The document discussed the prospect that insurance would be provided from the Clarendon Insurance Company (Clarendon), using the provider Network Beechstreet, with Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance Brokers in Plantation, Florida, being involved in the process to substitute coverage for TRG. Baftal is the shorthand reference for Bertany Association for Travel and Leisure, Inc. Baftal is an insurance agency. Respondent made some explanation to his customers insured through TRG of the prospect of using Clarendon to take over from TRG, which had not honored any of the claims for reimbursement made by Respondent's customers. A copy of this December 28, 2001, correspondence from Respondent to TRG's insureds who had been sold policies through Respondent, is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. As described in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 7, Baftal sent information concerning health care coverage to business owners, to include Respondent's customers, as described in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This correspondence indicated that the benefit plan would become effective December 1, 2001, upon condition that the insured meet applicable underwriting standards. This communication was made following receipt of premiums paid by the insured. Reimbursement for claims were to be processed through Advancement Administration in Maitland, Florida. Baftal did not assume the claims that had not been honored by TRG, and Clarendon did not become the insurer for those customers. Baftal did not follow through with the offer to provide health benefits to Respondent's customers who had begun with TRG. On February 11, 2002, as evidenced by Respondent's Exhibit numbered 8, Baftal wrote the customers to advise that health benefits would not be provided. That exhibit mentions American Benefit Plans through a Mr. David Neal and some intention for Mr. Neal's organization to provide a benefits program, including insurance through Clarendon, as administered through Advanced Administration. The Baftal communication goes on to say that Baftal had learned that Clarendon was not an insurer on the program, that the only insurer on the program was an offshore insurance company about which Baftal had not received credible information. The letter remarks that premiums paid to Baftal by the customers were being returned. On April 4, 2002, as related in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 9, TRG wrote to persons who were identified as health plan participants, to include Respondent's customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The letter stated that due to a problem with USA Services Group, the claims administrator on November 30, 2001, when the TRG plan ended, claims were not being paid. The correspondence remarks about difficulties with USA Services experienced by TRG, promising that TRG would fulfill obligations to the customers who were participants in the health plan. Contrary to this promise, TRG has not honored claims for those customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. On December 12, 2001, as reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4, Petitioner had written consumers who had enrolled in the TRG health plan to advise that the Petitioner did not consider the TRG health plan to be an ERISA program. Under the circumstances, the correspondence indicated that TRG should have sought authorization from Petitioner to sell health plans in Florida, which had not been done. The correspondence refers to some acknowledgement by TRG that it was not an ERISA program and needed to be licensed in Florida to conduct business. The correspondence advises the consumer to cease payment of any further premiums to TRG, to include the cancellation of automatic bank drafts for payment of premiums. The correspondence advises the consumer to obtain replacement insurance through Florida licensed insurance companies or HMOs. The letter goes on to remind the consumer of certain plans that were not licensed in Florida to conduct business because they were perceived to be illegitimate companies. The communication urged the consumer not to enroll in those health insurance plans. Respondent was made aware of this communication. Count I: Vicki Brown Vicki Brown has a business known as Rainbows End Ranch located in St. Johns County, Florida. This is a one-person business involving boarding and training of horses. Ms. Brown was interested in obtaining permanent health insurance, in that her COBRA policy was expiring. As a consequence, she was referred to Respondent by a friend. Respondent met Ms. Brown at her place of business. She explained to him her health insurance needs. Respondent suggested obtaining health insurance through TRG. Ms. Brown agreed. Ms. Brown paid $165.00 to TRG by check to cover the premium for September 2001. Two additional amounts of $165.00 were withdrawn from her checking account to pay premiums to TRG for the months that followed. Subsequently, Ms. Brown received Petitioner's December 12, 2001, letter informing her that TRG was not allowed to conduct business in Florida, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered Beyond that point, Ms. Brown had difficulties in her attempt to be reimbursed for her medical treatment, presumably covered by the TRG plan, by seeking reimbursement through another insurance firm other than by TRG. That process was pursued through Baftal in relation to insurance offered by Clarendon. Ms. Brown made Respondent aware that she had problems with reimbursement and of the receipt of Petitioner's letter. Respondent told her not to worry about the situation, that things were going to be taken care of by Clarendon taking over where TRG left off. Ms. Brown received Respondent's form correspondence dated December 28, 2001, explaining the switch from TRG to Clarendon, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. Ms. Brown also received information from Advancement Administration concerning Clarendon as the insurance company, Beechstreet as the provider network, mentioning Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance as brokers, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. Following her difficulties with TRG, on January 2, 2002, Ms. Brown wrote a check to the Baftal Escrow Account in the amount of $513.40 for premiums in relation to Clarendon. As can be seen, the payment to Clarendon represented an increase in premium compared to TRG. The check for $513.40 had been written out to LPI Clarendon and changed by Respondent to reflect the Baftal Escrow Account. In January 2002, Ms. Brown called Respondent and was told that the paperwork he was filling out was wrong and that he needed to complete new forms for Baftal "Insurance Brokers." According to Respondent, that explained why the coverage through Baftal had not gone into effect. Ms. Brown had received Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, the communication from Baftal calling for additional information as a prerequisite to obtaining insurance benefits effective December 1, 2001. Information provided in the document concerning issues related to her coverage was not useful to Ms. Brown when she made inquiry consistent with the instructions contained in the document. Concerning her claims for reimbursement, Ms. Brown had a health problem with her throat. In addressing the condition, she was told by her primary care doctor, that when trying to arrange for a specialist to attend her care through the Beechstreet Provider Network, which was part of the health care offered through the Baftal Agency, it was reported that Beechstreet was bankrupt. Then Ms. Brown called Respondent to ask his advice. Respondent told her he was not sure how to respond "right now things are in a haywire." Beyond that point Ms. Brown found out that Clarendon, part of the Baftal arrangement was not going to insure her business. In particular, Ms. Brown received the February 11, 2002, communication from Baftal commenting that insurance would not be provided through Baftal, remarking that Clarendon was not an insurer. This communication is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 12. After the TRG and Baftal experiences, Ms. Brown tried to be placed on her husband's health insurance policy but had trouble getting a certificate to allow her to obtain that coverage. This was in relation to the need for the existence of continuing coverage before being placed on the husband's policy. Fortunately, Ms. Brown was eventually able to get insurance through her husband's policy. Ms. Brown was dismayed by the difficulty experienced in obtaining health insurance when she discovered that TRG and Baftal would not meet her health insurance needs. From the evidence, it has been determined that the TRG plan purchased by Ms. Brown was the 80/60 plan with the $1,000.00 deductible. Although Ms. Brown testified that her medical bills in the period in question would total close to $1,000.00, the evidence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8, constituted of medical bills around that time do not approximate than amount. Ms. Brown had received a TRG benefit handbook and membership card, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 9 and 10, associated with her participation in the 80/60 plan with a $1000.00 deductible and co-pay of $10.00 for a physician office visit and $20.00 for a specialist office visit. In summary, none of the companies from whom Ms. Brown purchased insurance through Respondent, commencing with TRG, have paid for any of her claims for reimbursement for medical care during the relevant time period. In addition to not receiving a reimbursement for premiums paid to TRG, Ms. Brown did not receive the return of her premium paid to Baftal either. Count II: Alicia Moore Alicia Moore at one time was employed by Respondent. The position Alicia Moore held with Respondent's insurance agency was that of general office clerk. Ms. Moore has never been licensed in any capacity by Petitioner, related to the sale of insurance and has not taken courses to educate herself about the insurance business. In addition to her employment with Respondent, she purchased health insurance through Respondent with TRG around September 2001. Ms. Moore purchased the TRG health insurance policy in the interest of her husband's subchapter S corporation, small business. Her husband's name is Randy Moore. The name of the company operated by the husband is M-3 Enterprises, Inc. The husband's company has one employee, Randy Moore. The Moores resided in St. Augustine, Florida, at times relevant to the inquiry. The husband's business had been insured for health coverage by Humana, until Humana determined that it was not willing to provide health insurance for the company and the Moores decided that the individual policies offered by Humana in substitution for the group policy were too expensive. The Moores chose TRG for health insurance after Respondent had discussed several health insurance plans including individual or group policies. The reason for the choice was the premium price. On September 19, 2001, Randy Moore paid $434.00 for the health insurance premium to Redwood Group, in the interest of obtaining health insurance from TRG. On November 2, 2001, an additional $434.00 was debited from the checking account for M-3 Enterprises, to TRG for premiums related to the health insurance coverage. Ms. Moore recalls Respondent telling her that the TRG health plan was an ERISA plan but she has no knowledge about ERISA plans being regulated under federal law. In that connection, Ms. Moore commented in a statement given by affidavit, that Respondent told her that TRG was not regulated by Petitioner. Respondent explained to Ms. Moore that the premium payments to TRG were lower in costs because TRG was an ERISA program. TRG sent correspondence to the Moores as participants in the health plan. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 15. It enclosed a membership issued to Randy Moore setting forth the $10.00 co-pay for a physician visit, $20.00 co-pay for a specialist office visit, and $50.00 co-pay for emergency room visits associated with the participation in Plan 8033. The nature of the plan that the Moores had was a member- plus family. The cover letter listed the telephone number for the claims administrator USA Services to address claims or customer services questions. Ms. Moore also received a packet from TRG explaining the process of filing claims for health care. After obtaining the TRG health coverage, Ms. Moore and her son received treatment for medical conditions contemplated under the terms in the TRG plan. Notwithstanding the submission of information for reimbursement related to the charges, the charges were not paid under the TRG plan. The total of these claims was approximately $727.00. That $727.00 was less co- payments already made for the medical services. Ms. Moore made the Respondent aware that TRG was not reimbursing her for medical bills. Respondent gave Ms. Moore the telephone number for Tom Dougherty, Managing General Agent for TRG, expecting Mr. Dougherty to be able to assist Ms. Moore in dealing with outstanding medical bills. Ms. Moore called Mr. Dougherty several times, but this did not lead to the payment of the medical bills. Ms. Moore also sent TRG a certified letter in August 2002 concerning bills outstanding since October 2001, attaching the bills and information concerning payment of premiums for the coverage. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 18. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 21 is a compilation of information concerning the outstanding medical bills, and a statement from Medical Accounts Services, Inc. (Medical Accounts) concerning a current balance on June 17, 2002, of $229.00. The Moores had to make an arrangement to repay the money which was being collected through Medical Accounts. It is not clear from the record the exact nature of the member with family plan that had been purchased by the Moores. Consequently, the deductible in force when claims were submitted for reimbursement is not readily apparent. Ms. Moore in her testimony was unable to recall the amount of the deductible for the policy issued from TRG. It does appear from a review of the fee schedule associated with the 80/60 plan and the 90/70 plan offered by TRG, that the premium payments made did not entitle the Moores to coverage associated with a $500.00 deductible or $250.00 deductible. The other possible amount for the deductible, by process of elimination is $1,000.00. The Moores received correspondence dated November 28, 2001, sent to Randy Moore as a TRG enrollee, indicating that the coverage would end effective November 30, 2001, and reminding Mr. Moore that, according to the correspondence, he would have to find other health coverage as of December 1, 2001. This correspondence, as with other similar correspondence that has been discussed, promised to continue to process claims for covered services incurred before the coverage ended. The TRG letter terminating coverage for the Moores was received by the Moores five days after the date upon which the correspondence indicated that the coverage would no longer be in effect. This circumstance was very disquieting to Ms. Moore. The claims by Ms. Moore and her child were within the covered period for the TRG policy as to their dates. The letter received from TRG is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17. Ms. Moore spoke to Respondent about obtaining coverage when TRG discontinued its coverage. Respondent suggested that the Moores affiliate with Baftal. The Moores made a premium payment to Baftal but within a week of being accepted for coverage, Baftal wrote to advise that coverage had been declined. Beyond that time, the Moores obtained coverage from Medical Savings Insurance, a company that they still use for health insurance. Concerning Baftal, by correspondence dated February 11, 2002, Baftal wrote the Moores as a member, the form letter that has already been described, in which the Moores were told that they would not be provided health benefits. Given the problem described with Clarendon Insurance Company, the letter noted the return of the premium paid for coverage through Baftal. A copy of the letter sent to the Moores is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 19. Baftal did not reimburse the Moores for the outstanding claims totaling approximately $727.00. Count III: Bruce Chambers Bruce Chambers was another customer who bought TRG health insurance from Respondent. Mr. Chambers was a Florida resident at the time he purchased the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers and his wife moved to Florida from Georgia earlier in 2001. When they moved, the prior health insurance coverage that the Chambers held carried a high premium given Ms. Chambers diabetic condition. Moving from one state to the next also increased that premium. Under the circumstances, the Chambers agreed to purchase the TRG Health Plan. At one time related to the transaction promoted by Respondent, Mr. Chambers believed that TRG was licensed in Florida. He held this belief even in the instance where Respondent had commented that TRG was an ERISA program. Mr. Chambers also executed a coverage disclaimer in November 2001, upon a form from Respondent's agency noting that the health, welfare program applied for was not under the auspices of the Florida Department of Insurance. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 36. After purchasing the TRG policy, the wife developed an illness, and costs were incurred for services by the family's personal physician and for hospitalization. In addition Mr. Chambers had medical expenses. Exclusive of co-pays and the deductibles that are applicable, Mr. Chambers paid $7,478.46 for the health care he and his wife received. None of that amount has been reimbursed through TRG as expected under the terms of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 a month, plus $18.00 in other fees, for two months related to coverage effective October 1, 2001, extending into November 2001, a total of $1,010.00 in premiums and fees paid to TRG. No premiums and fees paid to TRG have been reimbursed. The amount of premium paid by Mr. Chambers corresponds under the client fee schedule in effect May 1, 2001, associated with the TRG Health Plan, as pertaining to an 80/60 plan for a member and family with a $1,000.00 deductible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 26 is constituted of the calculation of the expenses, $7,478.46 and attaches billing information, some of which is for services and care received prior to December 1, 2001, and some of which is for services and care beyond that date. When Mr. Chambers discovered that TRG was not reimbursing the costs which it was obligated to pay for health care received by the Chambers, he contacted the Respondent and TRG to gain satisfaction. He also contacted Petitioner. When Mr. Chambers enrolled in the TRG plan he received the transmittal letter enclosing his benefits card, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 23. The membership card identified his participation in plan 8033, with a co-pay for physician office visits of $10.00, specialty office visits of $20.00, and emergency room visits of $50.00. Mr. Chambers received notice from the Petitioner, presumably the December 12, 2001, notification concerning the lack of authority for TRG to business in Florida and the advice that CHEA (Consumer Health Education Association) was not authorized to do business in Florida either. On December 20, 2001, the Chambers wrote Respondent concerning the unavailability of insurance through TRG and CHEA. The Chambers asked Respondent to give them advice about a list of "small group market carriers" they understood to offer health plans. This letter to Respondent is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25. Also, within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 was a copy of the letter from Respondent to TRG insureds dated December 28, 2001, which made mention of Clarendon as an alternative to TRG. Within that same exhibit is correspondence dated January 21, 2002, from the Respondent to enrollees in the TRG plan, to include the Chambers, discussing Baftal and the prospect that the latter company might honor TRG claims. Finally, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 contains an August 21, 2002, letter from Mr. Chambers to TRG asking TRG to pay for its portion of the medical expenses as reimbursement. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 27 is the December 1, 2001, application by Mr. Chambers to obtain medical benefits through CHEA. The application also refers to EOS Health Services. This predates Petitioner's warning about CHEA and EOS being licensed to do business in Florida. On December 1, 2001, Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 for premium payments to EOS Health Services and provided a voided check for future payments for premiums by automatic withdrawal from his account. This effort was made as a follow on to obtain health coverage when TRG no longer provided health insurance to the Chambers. To obtain health coverage, Mr. Chambers paid $1,465.88 to the Baftal Escrow Account. This payment was made by a check dated January 14, 2002. That money was refunded by Baftal on January 12, 2002, and no coverage was offered through that company for health insurance. Mr. Chambers had been provided information about the opportunity to obtain insurance from Baftal as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 31. Respondent had also suggested that Mr. Chambers apply for health insurance from American Benefit Plan, following the discontinuance of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers applied for that coverage by documents dated February 18, 2002, in the interest of his company, Bruce A. Cambers, CFP. Information concerning that application is found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 32. American Benefit Plans was listed by Petitioner as an entity not allowed to conduct business in Florida in the December 12, 2001, letter of advice to insurance consumers following the problem with TRG. Mr. Chambers wrote two checks, one in the amount of $628.60 to Independent Managers Association and one for $799.68 to the Association of Independent Managers, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 35 and 33 respectively. The two checks were written on February 18, 2002. Those checks were voided in relation to payment for monthly insurance premiums and association dues. The effect was to not accept those checks for premium payments to obtain health insurance. On March 5, 2002, ACH Corporation of America wrote Mr. Chambers stating that because of incorrect procedures, or untimely submission, health coverage would not be extended, pertaining to an application for Ultra Med Choice EPO. Ultra Med was another health insurance business which Petitioner in its December 12, 2001, correspondence to health care consumers had been identified as unlicensed to conduct health insurance business in Florida. The letter declining coverage from ACH and application information for a policy sought to become effective December 1, 2001, is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered This application was in relation to Bruce Chambers, CFP as employer. Mr. Chambers remains out of pocket for payments he had to make for health care extended, principally to his wife, for which TRG was obligated to provide reimbursement in part. None of the other policies that Mr. Chambers attempted to obtain worked out to substitute for the TRG obligation for reimbursement for health care claims. Eventually the Chambers were able to obtain health insurance. At present the Chambers have a two-man group policy through Mr. Chambers' business to provide health coverage. Because of the problem with health insurance coverage, Ms. Chambers was required to return to work. Her employment was outside Mr. Chambers' company, as well as within his company. As a result of Ms. Chambers' failure to make payments to Flagler Hospital, where Ms. Chambers had received care, under terms that should have involved TRG providing reimbursement for costs, the bills were turned over to a collection agency compromising the credit standing of the Chambers. For the most part, the credit problems have been resolved. Due Diligence As established by testimony from Linda Davis, Analyst II in Petitioner's Jacksonville Office, there is a means to determine whether an insurance company has the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida. This is accomplished by resort to the electronic data base maintained by Petitioner. A certificate of authority is an indication that the insurance company has completed the necessary requirements to be licensed or authorized to sell insurance in Florida. As established through Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 39, TRG/USA Health Plans, TRG Marketing L.L.C. was not authorized to do business in Florida. An insurance agent licensed in Florida, to include the time frame envisioned by the Amended Administrative Complaint, would have had access to the data base identifying whether an insurance company had the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida and could properly have been expected to seek this information before engaging in the sale of products from a company such as TRG. Rather than avail himself of that opportunity, Respondent made some form of inquiry to Petitioner on the subject of TRG, while apparently ignoring the more fundamental consideration of whether TRG had been granted a certificate of authority to conduct its business in Florida, which should have been pursued. Ascertaining the existence or nonexistence of a certificate of authority, constitutes "due diligence" incumbent upon an agent before engaging in the sale of insurance from a prospective insurance company. Respondent's Disciplinary History Petitioner has not taken disciplinary action against Respondent before this case.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 624.11, 626.611(7) and (8), 626.621(2) and (6), 626.901(1), Florida Statutes (2001); suspending his licenses for nine months; placing Respondent on two-years probation; and requiring attendance at such continuing education classes as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph O. Stroud, Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Yisell Cabrera Rodriquez pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes, from settlement proceeds received by Petitioner from third parties.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Julio Cesar Cabrera, is the duly-appointed Personal Representative of the Estate of Yisell Cabrera Rodriquez, his deceased daughter. Respondent is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding On August 30, 2015, Petitioner's 23-year old daughter, Yisell, was severely injured in an automobile accident. She was a passenger in an automobile that was struck by another automobile that failed to yield the right-of-way at an intersection. The automobile in which Yisell was a passenger previously had been in an accident and had been determined a total loss. It subsequently was rebuilt by Unique Body Works in Miami. A sister company, Unique Automotive, sold the vehicle to the driver of the car in which Yisell was a passenger on August 30, 2015. When Unique Body Works rebuilt the automobile, it did not replace the passenger side airbags. When the automobile was struck in the accident, airbags on the passenger side were not available to deploy. As a result, Yisell was severely injured. She was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where she received medical treatment in intensive care. Tragically, on August 31, 2015, Yisell died from the injuries she sustained in the accident. Petitioner instituted a wrongful death action against the at-fault driver ("Carlos Espinoza") and the owner of the automobile ("Ana Ramirez") that struck the automobile in which Yisell was a passenger, Unique Body Works, and Unique Automotive, to recover damages to Yisell's parents and to her estate. Espinoza/Ramirez were insured by Infinity Auto Insurance Company under a policy having a bodily injury limit of $10,000. Unique Body Works was insured by Grenada Insurance Company under a policy having a liability limit of $100,000. Unique Automotive was insured by Western Heritage Insurance Company under a policy having a liability limit of $30,000. All of the insurers tendered their respective policy limits for a total of $140,000. On July 14, 2017, Petitioner, on behalf of the Estate of Yisell Cabrera Rodriquez, entered into settlement agreements with Espinoza/Ramirez, Unique Body Works, and Unique Automotive, for a total of $140,000, which constitutes the total amount of the third-party benefits received.4/ Yisell's medical care related to her injury was paid by Medicaid.5/ The medical expenses paid by Medicaid totaled $86,491.86. Pursuant to section 409.910(6)(c)1., AHCA has a Medicaid lien for that amount. Petitioner's Challenge to the Repayment Amount Section 409.910(11)(f) establishes a formula for distributing the benefits that are recovered by a recipient or his or her legal representative in a tort action against a third party that results in a judgment, settlement, or award from that third party. Applying this formula to the $140,000 that Petitioner received in third-party benefits results in a lien repayment amount of $51,838.61.6/ In this proceeding, AHCA asserts that it is owed this amount. As noted above, Petitioner disputes that $51,838.61 is the amount of recovered medical expenses payable to Respondent, and instead asserts that $4,039.17 in medical expenses are payable to Respondent. In support of his position, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mrs. Maria Rodriquez, Yisell's mother. She testified, persuasively, that theirs was a very close-knit family who did everything together, and that the loss of Yisell has destroyed their family life. She also testified that as a result of the emotional trauma of losing Yisell, her health has suffered, and she has difficulty sleeping and has gastric reflux for which she is being treated. Petitioner also testified, persuasively, that the loss of Yisell changed his life and the lives of his family members. As he described it, "[her loss] has changed our life. It's all the sadness. It's all the pain, everything. Everything's changed. . . . We were happy. We were so happy. We were so close." Petitioner also presented the expert testimony of Oscar Ruiz7/ regarding the valuation of Petitioner's wrongful death claim. Mr. Ruiz testified that in his opinion, $3 million constituted a very conservative valuation of the damages suffered by Yisell's parents in this case. He based this opinion on having interviewed Yisell's parents regarding the impact of her loss on their family, and on his knowledge of jury verdicts and settlements in recent Florida cases involving awards of damages to parents for the loss of their children in automobile accidents or due to medical malpractice. He emphasized that his valuation was far more conservative than many comparable cases that yielded substantially higher verdicts or settlements. Petitioner asserts that Respondent is only entitled to recover $4,039.17 in medical expenses on the basis of the calculation method used in Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006). Specifically, Petitioner proposes to apply the same ratio that the settlement of $140,000 bore to the total monetary value of all damages ($3 million, according to Petitioner's expert) to determine the amount Respondent is owed for medical expenses. Petitioner contends that although Ahlborn did not establish a uniform calculation method applicable in all cases, it nonetheless has been accepted and applied by ALJs in other Medicaid third-party recovery cases to determine the amount of reimbursable medical expenses under section 409.910(17)(b), without challenge from AHCA regarding the accuracy of that method. Respondent did not present any evidence regarding the value of Petitioner's claim or propose a differing valuation of the damages. As more fully discussed below, Respondent contends that the opportunity to rebut the medical expense allocation provided under section 409.910(17)(b) is not available in cases such as this, where the Medicaid recipient dies before third- party benefits are recovered through settlement or other means.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent owns and operates a gas station/convenience store in Miami, Florida. The Investigation. The Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Julio Cabrera ("Cabrera"). Cabrera first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Cabrera then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. On February 23, 2016, Cabrera visited Respondent's place of business and observed two women, Margarita Maya ("Maya"), and Nuri Penagos ("Penagos") serving customers. Cabrera asked to speak to the owner. Maya telephoned John Obando ("Obando"). After introducing himself, Cabrera asked how many employees worked for the business. Obando indicated he needed to check with his accountant. Shortly thereafter, Obando called Cabrera back and indicated that his employees included Maya; Carolina Santos ("Santos"); his wife, Marta Ayala ("Ayala"); and himself. Obando confirmed that the business did not currently have workers' compensation insurance coverage nor did any of the members of the LLC have an exemption. The LLC had three managing members: Obando; Maria Rios ("Rios"); and Carlos Franco ("Franco"). Obando explained that Rios lived out of the country and did not provide services to Respondent. According to Obando, Franco also resides outside of the United States, but he travels to Florida and periodically assists with the running of Respondent's business enterprise. Cabrera contacted his supervisor and relayed this information. With his supervisor's approval, Cabrera issued a SWO and served a Business Records Request. Respondent provided the requested business records to the Department. The evidence showed that during the two-year look-back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, including managing members without exemptions. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Penalty Calculation. The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Matt Jackson ("Jackson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Jackson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Jackson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. Utilizing the business records provided by Respondent, the Department determined Respondent’s gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L- 6.027. The Department served an Amended OPA on March 29, 2016, imposing a total penalty of $29,084.62. On May 6, 2016, following receipt of additional records, the Department issued a Second Amended OPA, reducing the penalty to $25,670.88. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a SWO, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $1,718.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $25,670.88, yielding a total remaining penalty of $23,952.88. No records were provided regarding the compensation of Penagos, who was observed working on the date of the inspection. According to Respondent, Penagos was present and working on that date, not as an employee, but as an unpaid volunteer who was testing out the job to see if it was to her liking. The Department imputed gross payroll for Penagos for February 23, 2016, which resulted in a penalty in the amount of $16.26 and was included in the Second Amended OPA. Respondent's Defenses. At the final hearing, Obando testified that he and the other co-owners of Respondent always attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business and have never had compliance problems. He testified that the business carried workers' compensation coverage until 2013, when its insurance agent advised Respondent it could go without coverage due to the size of the business, if the managing members of the LLC were to apply for, and be granted, an exemption. Obando offered no explanation why Respondent failed to secure the exemptions before letting coverage lapse during the penalty period. Obando also argues that on the date of the investigation, Penagos was not an employee, but rather his sister-in-law, who was trying out the job for a day as a volunteer to determine if she would replace Obando's wife, Ayala, who no longer wanted to work in the store. Obando asserts that only two employees were actually working in the store that day, so Respondent should not have been considered out of compliance. Obando also testified that at most, no more than three employees work at the store on any particular day. Obando testified that Respondent has ample liability coverage and that each worker has health insurance, suggesting that workers' compensation insurance coverage is unnecessary. According to Obando, the $23,952.88 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact. Excluding Penagos as a volunteer, and Rios as a managing member of the LLC with no active service to Respondent, Respondent was a covered employer with four or more employees at all times during the penalty period. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the SWO, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, S & S of Florida, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $23,936.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 7th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Trevor Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) John J. Obando S & S of Florida, LLC 8590 Southwest Eighth Street Miami, Florida 33144 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated sections 627.6675, 626.9541(1)(a)1., 626.9541(1)(a)6., or 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as pled in the Amended Notice and Order to Show Cause, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Office of Insurance Regulation of the Financial Services Commission (the Office) is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code with respect to licensees of the Office. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company (GTL) is a foreign insurer, domiciled in Illinois, which holds a certificate of authority to transact business as a life and health insurer in Florida. GTL offers insurance products nationwide, except for New York, including Medicare long-term care, supplemental, cancer, college student, accident, and sickness policies. GTL is subject to the jurisdiction of the Office under the Florida Insurance Code, is subject to fines and disciplinary actions, and is substantially affected by the administrative complaint filed against it. On or about April 3, 2000, GTL entered into an agreement with Celtic Life Insurance Company. Celtic agreed to make medical expense conversion insurance available to eligible participants whose coverage under GTL group medical expense insurance was terminated. However, the agreement with Celtic specifically excluded coverage if GTL discontinued the group medical expense insurance plan in its entirety, or in a particular state. This exclusion was consistent with Celtic’s normal rules and both parties to the agreement knew of the exclusion. Any suggestion on the part of GTL that it was confused about Celtic’s obligations under this provision of the contract is not credible. A conversion policy is a form of replacement insurance coverage for which certificate holders in a group policy may be eligible when their coverage under a group policy is terminated. On or about June 21, 2006, GTL submitted filing number 06-08141, an out-of-state group major medical policy (Policy), to the Office. The letter transmitting the Policy to the Office noted that the Policy included a conversion provision and stated that GTL had a conversion policy available through Celtic Insurance Company. The letter did not state that the conversion policies to be provided by Celtic would not be available if coverage by GTL was terminated as part of its withdrawal from an individual market or state. The Policy provisions regarding conversion provided in relevant part: Health Insurance Conversion. A covered person may convert his or her health insurance coverage under the policy to another form of insurance issued by us if such insurance or any portion of it ends, provided the covered person is entitled to convert and within 63 days after such coverage ends the covered person: applies in writing to us at our home office; and, pays the first premium. We will provide the covered person the required notice within 14 days of the person informing us of their interest in making application for a conversion policy. No evidence of insurability will be required if the covered person converts under this provision. The effective date of the converted policy shall be the day following the termination of insurance under the policy. The Policy went on to define covered persons entitled to convert as those who had been covered continuously for at least 3 months prior to termination of the policy. The Policy set forth some exceptions. The Policy made no mention that GTL could contract with another insurer to issue the individual converted policy. A group health insurance product is issued to an association or employer. Individual certificates of health insurance are then issued to the members of the group. Under the Policy, forms were issued to Consumer Benefits Association of America. Certificates of health insurance coverage were then issued to at least 216 Florida residents who were members of the Consumer Benefits Association of America (Members) as evidence of their insurance under the Policy. These certificates advised Members of their conversion privilege in the event that coverage shown by the certificate was terminated, in language substantially identical to that in the Policy. The certificates met the statutory requirement for notification of the conversion privilege. The certificates of health insurance coverage made no mention that GTL could contract with another insurer to issue the individual converted policy. The Policy was never profitable for GTL. GTL instituted significant increases in the premium, but losses were still too high, and GTL made decisions to terminate the Group Plan and exit the Florida market entirely. On April 26, 2010, GTL notified the Office that it would be terminating all medical expense health insurance coverage in the individual market in Florida. The notice stated that the Uniform Termination of Coverage would affect 286 insureds in Florida. GTL was not required to file a copy of the letter (Termination Letter) that it planned to mail to Florida residents whose coverage would be terminated, but it did submit a copy to the Office. The Termination Letter was reviewed by Mr. Gary Edenfield, who at the time was a Senior Management Analyst Supervisor in the Division of Life and Health, Office of Forms and Rates. Mr. Edenfield requested that GTL make two changes to the Termination Letter: first, he asked that the reference to a 90-day notice be changed to say 180-day notice; and second, he asked GTL to include a reference to a website listing companies that could be contacted to provide individual replacement coverage on a guaranteed-issue basis. GTL made the requested changes to the Termination Letter and provided a revised copy to Mr. Edenfield, who then advised GTL that it had listed an incorrect website. Mr. Edenfield’s advice on each occasion was based upon his understanding that the policies involved were all individual major medical policies, because that was the way GTL had entered the filing in “I-File,” the Office’s electronic filing system. He was unaware at this time that the Termination Letter would be going to Members under the group Policy as well. On or about May 5, 2010, GTL sent the Termination Letter1/ to at least 216 Florida residents covered under the out-of-state group major medical Policy, as well as to about 70 Florida residents who held individual policies offered by GTL. The Termination Letter stated, in relevant part: 2. WILL GTL BE OFFERING A REPLACEMENT PLAN? At this time GTL will no longer be offering major medical type coverage. However, if you have 18 months of creditable coverage, you may be eligible for an individual major medical plan on a guaranteed issue basis. The Florida Department of Financial Website http://www.floir.com/CompanySearch/ provides a listing of companies that you may wish to contact to obtain replacement coverage. If you have any questions about the termination, you may contact Policy Owner Service at 1-800-338-7452. You may also contact the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Consumer Services at 1- 877-693-5236. A guaranteed-issue policy is a replacement insurance policy that insurers who are authorized to write individual medical coverage in Florida are required by statute to write for an individual whose group coverage has been terminated. A person who is entitled to a conversion policy is not eligible for a guaranteed-issue policy. There was no mention in the Termination Letter of any right to a conversion policy as a form of replacement coverage for the Policy being terminated. At the time it sent the Termination Letter, GTL knew that three-fourths of the recipients of the Termination Letter were holders of certificates of insurance coverage under the Policy. GTL knew that the Policy and these certificates granted a conversion privilege. GTL did not intend to offer a conversion policy to Members whose coverage under the Policy was being terminated. GTL knew it did not have coverage with Celtic to provide converted policies and could not offer the coverage itself. GTL knew the Termination Letter was misleading. On May 11, 2010, the Division of Consumer Services of the Department of Financial Services began receiving consumer complaints related to GTL’s non-renewal of health insurance and the Termination Letter. Mr. Edenfield received a call from the Division of Consumer Services stating that they did not believe GTL’s action was a termination of individual major medical policies. Mr. Edenfield called Mr. Allan Heindl, Vice President of Product Approval and Compliance at GTL. Mr. Heindl told him that the filing involved an out-of-state group major medical policy. Mr. Edenfield then advised Mr. Heindl that GTL was required to provide a conversion policy, and that GTL would need to send a new notice out informing Members that they were not entitled to a guaranteed-issue individual policy, but were entitled to a conversion policy. Mr. Heindl stated that he would have to “talk to his people” about that. In a follow-up letter sent by e-mail from the Office and received by GTL on May 20, 2010, the Office again advised GTL that it was required to provide conversion policies. The Office again advised GTL that it would be necessary for GTL to send the Members receiving the first letter a second one that explained that they were entitled to a conversion policy and not a guaranteed-issue policy from another company that issues individual policies. The Office did not set forth any period of time within which GTL needed to send the second letter. Mr. Heindl testified that at the time he received the May 20, 2010 letter, GTL disagreed with the Office about whether GTL was required to provide a conversion benefit. GTL and the Office sent a few e-mails back and forth in early June 2010, discussing whether GTL was required to offer conversion policies under Florida law. GTL continued to say it saw no such requirement in Florida Statutes; the Office continued to maintain that the statutes required it. Mr. Heindl noted that there would not be any conversion plan to offer because the statute required GTL to terminate and non-renew all individual health plans, since they were exiting the market. On or about September 21, 2010, Capital City Consulting, L.L.C., sent a letter to the Office indicating that GTL had reviewed the statutes cited by the Office and had concluded that GTL was not required to offer conversion policies. On September 22, 2010, the Office sent another e-mail advising GTL that it must comply with the conversion statute. On or about September 29, 2010, GTL sent a letter to the Office stating that after reviewing the September 22, 2010, e-mail from the Office and after their telephone call with Deputy Commissioner Mary Beth Senkewicz, they were unable to agree with the Office’s interpretation of the statutes and still believed their actions did not violate the Florida Insurance Code. GTL never sent a follow-up letter to Members as requested by the Office. GTL began terminating coverage under the Policy and certificates in November 2010, as renewal dates occurred after the 180-day notice provided in the Termination Letter sent in May. On January 12, 2011, the Office served GTL with a Notice and Order to Show Cause alleging that GTL had violated the Florida Insurance Code by continuing to non-renew policies and failing to offer converted policies. On January 28, 2011, GTL filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Office. It amended that Petition on February 1, 2011, still maintaining that it was not required to offer conversion policies. In February or March, 2011, GTL began negotiations for an agreement with Celtic to provide the conversion benefit described in the Policy and certificates arising from GTL’s exit from the Florida market. On April 5, 2011, in response to a March 17, 2011, inquiry from Celtic as to the number of covered lives remaining, Mr. Heindl advised in part, “The size of the group in FL at the time of termination was 286 and today we have 28 left. I’m not sure if FL would make us go back and offer coverage to all previously insured insured’s. If FL does, I can’t imagine many would come back to GTL.” Discussions between GTL and Celtic continued in April and May. GTL reached an “understanding” with Celtic in May that Celtic would provide conversion coverage. The understanding was that if GTL sent notification to all terminated insureds informing them of the conversion available from Celtic, then GTL would pay an initial transaction fee of $125,000 to Celtic, due when the agreement was entered into, along with the sum of $30,000 per policy for each conversion policy subsequently issued by Celtic. If Celtic did not send out a notice to the terminated insureds, then the initial transaction fee would be reduced to $100,000. At the time the understanding was reached, only 28 or fewer Members were left; there was no understanding in place when the coverage of at least 188 Members was terminated. No written contract incorporating this understanding was ever entered into with Celtic. GTL did not send out a notice to the terminated Members. The initial transaction fee was never paid. Mr. Heindl testified at hearing that if a Member had come forward and actually applied for conversion, GTL would then have moved forward and paid the agreed-upon fees. No Member requested information about a conversion policy. GTL chose not to send any notice to terminated Members in an effort to eliminate or minimize the possibility that Members might request conversion policies, and so avoid the costs of contracting with Celtic to provide the conversion coverage. GTL was hoping that the Members were unaware of their conversion rights, and would not become aware of them. At no time from the inception of the Policy and the certificates based thereon, through the time the Termination Letters were sent, until the time of the Final Hearing in this case, did GTL have in effect any written contract with Celtic or any other insurer to issue converted policies to Members upon GTL’s termination of the Policy group coverage in its entirety, or in the State of Florida. On August 26, 2011, Mr. Heindl, party representative for GTL, conceded under oath in deposition that the Policy was an out- of-state group policy and that sections 627.6515 and 627.6675, Florida Statutes (2010),2/ did apply to the Policy. On September 2, 2011, an Order was issued granting the Office’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Notice and Order to Show Cause. Counts I and II of the earlier complaint were amended. The earlier complaint had charged in these counts that “Guarantee Trust violated the Florida Insurance Code by failing to offer converted policies as required by Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes.” As amended, Counts I and II alleged that “Guarantee Trust violated the Florida Insurance Code by issuing the Termination Letter without offering converted policies required by the Florida Insurance Code and Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes.” The word “offer” or “offering” is not defined in the Florida Insurance Code. These terms are used in dozens of places throughout the Code, however, in phrases such as “insurers to offer coverage,” “offers policies or certificates,” “licensees offering policies,” and “offering insurance,” all in the context of describing insurance lines and products being made available in the market by an insurer. GTL itself used these words in similar contexts. In its September 21, 2010, letter to the Office, GTL stated “GTL is not required to offer conversion policies.” In later e-mails to Celtic, GTL referred to “offering a conversion option” and “make us go back and offer coverage.” In the Termination Letter itself, GTL wrote, “GTL will no longer be offering major medical type coverage.” GTL could not reasonably have interpreted the phrase “without offering converted policies” in Counts I and II as referring only to notification to Members. GTL was well aware that Counts I and II were alleging that GTL’s issuance of the Termination Letter constituted a revocation of GTL’s contractual and statutory responsibility to make conversion insurance available to Members at a point in time at which GTL did not have a written contract in place with any carrier to provide such conversion policies. GTL was not hindered in its ability to prepare a defense to Counts I and II. The Office showed by clear and convincing evidence that at the time GTL issued the Termination Letter, GTL did not have a contract with another insurer to provide conversion policies upon GTL’s exit from the Florida market, and would be unable to do so itself. The Amended Notice and Order to Show Cause of September 2, 2011, also added three new counts, alleging that the Termination Letter sent out to covered persons constituted an unfair insurance trade practice under the Florida Insurance Code because it was misrepresentative, deceptive, and misleading. The statement in the Termination Letter that GTL would no longer be offering major medical coverage was not a false statement. GTL was withdrawing entirely from the Florida market and would not itself be offering any coverage, including individual conversion policies. Although technically true, the statement was nevertheless likely to mislead a reasonable Member, because it made no mention that GTL was legally required to arrange for another provider to offer the conversion policy on GTL’s behalf. The statement that GTL would no longer be offering major medical type coverage, omitting any further information, would leave the incorrect impression with a reasonable Member that the right to a conversion policy upon termination, as set forth in the certificate of health insurance, no longer existed. GTL knew that this statement was misleading as to a reasonable Member. Similarly, the statement in the Termination Letter that “you may be eligible” for an individual major medical plan on a guaranteed issue basis was not a false statement. The statement did not say that any reader “was” entitled to such a policy, only that they “may” be. Again, while not technically false, this statement was likely to mislead a reasonable Member, for none of these individuals was in fact eligible for a guaranteed-issue policy. GTL could easily have distinguished between Members and its individual policy holders in the letter, or better yet, sent two different letters, but it failed to do so. GTL instead chose to say only that readers “may be eligible” for a guaranteed issue policy and to include the reference to the Department’s website list of other companies, without any mention of the converted policy available to a majority of recipients of the letter. This omission was likely to leave a reasonable Member eligible for a conversion policy with the incorrect impression that this right no longer existed. GTL knew that this statement was misleading. Even the second question asked in the Termination Letter was misleading. The question posed by GTL, “WILL GTL BE OFFERING A REPLACEMENT PLAN?” was followed by true statements, but it was not the right question. Certificate holders would be interested in knowing what coverage might be available to them from any source to replace the terminated coverage, not simply coverage from GTL itself. Again, reasonable Members would likely be left with the impression that a conversion policy was no longer available to them because GTL was exiting the Florida market. GTL knew that posing the question in this fashion was misleading. On November 15, 2011, GTL filed a Petition to Challenge Unadopted Rule. The Petition was served on the Office more than 30 days before it was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, as stipulated at hearing. The Financial Services Commission has not adopted the statement that it is a violation of provisions of the Florida Insurance Code to “issue a termination letter without offering converted policies as required by Section 627.6675,” or any similar statement, by rulemaking procedures. The Office proved by clear and convincing evidence that Celtic was never required to provide conversion policies if the termination of the Policy was a result of a decision to discontinue major medical coverage in Florida. It similarly proved that no other contract providing conversion policies under these circumstances was ever entered into with Celtic or any other insurer, and that GTL could not itself provide conversion coverage. The Office proved by clear and convincing evidence that GTL knowingly made, issued, published, disseminated, circulated, and placed before the public the Termination Letter. The Office failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any statement in the Termination Letter was false. The Office proved by clear and convincing evidence that statements in the Termination Letter were made for the purpose of inducing, and tended to induce, the forfeiture of the conversion policy to which the Members were entitled under the Policy. The Office proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Termination Letter contained an assertion, representation and statement with respect to the business of insurance that was willfully deceptive and misleading. GTL knew, or should have known, that this was an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Florida Insurance Code.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Office of Insurance Regulation enter a Final Order finding that Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company committed 216 knowing and willful violations of subsection 626.9521(1), Florida Statutes, for engaging in an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act or practice as defined in subsection 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $1,000 for each such violation, for a total fine not to exceed an aggregate amount of $200,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 16th day of March, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners’ Interim Rate Request (IRR) for an increase should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency of state government responsible for the implementation and administration of the Medicaid Program in the State of Florida. AHCA is authorized to audit Medicaid Cost Reports submitted by Medicaid Providers participating in the Medicaid Program. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud are licensed nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid Program as institutional Medicaid Providers. On May 23, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville entered into a settlement agreement with the representative of the estate of one of its former residents, D. P. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at Jacksonville would pay $350,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at Jacksonville paid the personal representative the sum of $350,000.00. By letter dated July 16, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville requested an IRR effective August 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.2., for additional costs incurred from self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at Jacksonville submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the costs exceeded $5,000.00 and that the increase in cost was projected at $2.77/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at Jacksonville was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,627.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated July 18, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of Section IV J. of the Plan, necessary and proper for granting the request. Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Subsequently, Avante at Jacksonville became concerned that, perhaps, the incorrect provision of the Plan had been cited in its IRR. As a result, a second IRR was submitted for the same costs. By letter dated October 22, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville made a second request for an IRR, this time pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.3., for the same additional costs incurred from the self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 settlement. The same supporting documentation was included. Avante at Jacksonville was of the opinion that the Plan Section IV J.3. specifically dealt with the costs of general and professional liability insurance. By letter dated October 30, 2007, AHCA denied the second request for an IRR, indicating that the first request was denied based on “all sub-sections of Section IV J of the Plan”; that the second request failed to satisfy the requirements of the Plan Section IV J.3. and all sections and sub-sections of the Plan “necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. On October 19, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud entered a settlement agreement with the personal representative of the estate of one of its former residents, G. M. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at St. Cloud would pay $90,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at St. Cloud paid the personal representative the sum of $90,000.00. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud requested an IRR effective November 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J, for additional costs incurred as a result of paying the $90,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at St. Cloud submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the increase in cost was projected at $2.02/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at St. Cloud was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,000.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated December 12, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of “Section IV J of the Plan necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at St. Cloud contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Insurance Policies and the Nursing Home Industry in Florida Typically, nursing homes in Florida carry low limit general and professional liability insurance policies. The premiums of the policies exceed the policy limits. For example, the premium for a policy of Avante at Jacksonville to cover the $350,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $425,000.00 and for a policy of Avante at St. Cloud to cover the $90,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $200,000.00. Also, the policies have a funded reserve feature wherein, if the reserve is depleted through the payment of a claim, the nursing home is required to recapitalize the reserve or purchase a new policy. That is, if a policy paid a settlement up to the policy limits, the nursing home would have to recapitalize the policy for the amount of the claim paid under the policy and would have to fund the loss, which is the amount in excess of the policy limits, out-of-pocket. Florida’s Medicaid Reimbursement Plan for Nursing Homes The applicable version of the Plan is Version XXXI. AHCA has incorporated the Plan in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. AHCA uses the Plan in conjunction with the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB.15-1)3 to calculate reimbursement rates of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The calculation of reimbursement rates uses a cost- based, prospective methodology, using the prior year’s costs to establish the current period per diem rates. Inflation factors, target ceilings, and limitations are applied to reach a per patient, per day per diem rate that is specific to each nursing home. Reimbursement rates for nursing homes and long-term care facilities are typically set semi-annually, effective on January 1 and July 1 of each year. The most recent Medicaid cost report is used to calculate a facility’s reimbursement rate and consists of various components, including operating costs, the direct patient care costs, the indirect patient care costs, and property costs. The Plan allows for the immediate inclusion of costs in the per diem rate to Medicaid Providers under very limited circumstances through the IRR process. The interim rate’s purpose is to compensate for the shortfalls of a prospective reimbursement system and to allow a Medicaid Provider to increase its rate for sudden, unforeseen, dramatic costs beyond the Provider’s control that are of an on-going nature. Importantly, the interim rate change adjusts the Medicaid Provider’s individual target rate ceiling to allow those costs to flow ultimately through to the per diem paid, which increases the amount of the Provider’s overall reimbursement. In order for a cost to qualify under an interim rate request, the cost must be an allowable cost and meet the criteria of Section IV J of the Plan. The Plan provides in pertinent part: IV. Standards * * * J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem rate. If new State or Federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure and certification requirements, or new interpretations of existing laws, rules, regulations, or licensure and certification requirements require providers to make changes that result in increased or decreased patient care, operating, or capital costs, requests for component interim rates shall be considered for each provider based on the budget submitted by the provider. All providers’ budgets submitted shall be reviewed by the Agency [AHCA] and shall be the basis for establishing reasonable cost parameters. In cases where new State or Federal requirements are imposed that affect all providers, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the class ceilings to account for changes in costs caused by the new requirements effective as of the date of the new requirements or implementation of the new requirements, whichever is later. Interim rate adjustments shall be granted to reflect increases in the cost of general or professional liability insurance for nursing homes if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem. CMS-PUB.15-1 provides in pertinent part: 2160. Losses Arising From Other Than Sale of Assets A. General.—A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider’s financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self- insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. Where a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider as a result of such losses may not be included in allowable costs. * * * 2160.2 Liability Losses.—Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Insurance against a provider’s liability for such payments to others would include, for example, automobile liability insurance; professional liability (malpractice, negligence, etc.); owners, landlord and tenants liability; and workers’ compensation. Any settlement negotiated by the provider or award resulting from a court or jury decision of damages paid by the provider in excess of the limits of the provider’s policy, as well as the reasonable cost of any legal assistance connected with the settlement or award are includable in allowable costs, provided the provider submits evidence to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage carried by the provider at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. Also, the reasonable cost of insurance protection, as well as any losses incurred because of the application of the customary deductible feature of the policy, are includable in allowable costs. As to whether a cost is allowable, the authority to which AHCA would look is first to the Plan, then to CMS-PUB.15- 1, and then to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As to reimbursement issues, AHCA would look to the same sources in the same order for the answer. The insurance liability limit levels maintained by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud reflect sound and prudent management practices. Claims that resulted in the settlements of Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud, i.e., wrongful death and/or negligence, are the type of claims covered under the general and professional liability policies carried by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both had a general and professional liability insurance policy in full force and effect at the time the wrongful death and/or negligence claims were made that resulted in the settlement agreements. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud filed a claim with their insurance carrier, even though they could have, for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both chose not to file a claim with their respective insurance carrier for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. AHCA did not look beyond the Plan in making its determination that neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud should be granted an IRR. Wesley Hagler, AHCA’s Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, testified as an expert in Medicaid cost reimbursement. He testified that settlement agreements are a one time cost and are not considered on-going operating costs for purposes of Section IV J.2. of the Plan. Mr. Hagler’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Hagler testified that settlement agreements and defense costs are not considered general and professional liability insurance for purposes of Section IV J.3. of the Plan. To the contrary, Stanley William Swindling, Jr., an expert in health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, testified that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs. Mr. Swindling’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Hagler’s testimony, and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs.4 Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted any documentation with their IRRs to indicate a specific law, statute, or rule, either state or federal, with which they were required to comply, resulted in an increase in costs. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud experienced an increase in the premiums for the general and professional liability insurance policies. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted documentation with its IRRs to indicate that the premiums of its general and professional liability insurance increased. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud could only meet the $5,000.00 threshold and the one percent increase in total per diem under the Plan, Sections IV J.2. or J.3. by basing its calculations on the settlement costs. Looking to the Plan in conjunction with CMS-PUB.15-1 to determine reimbursement costs, CMS-PUB.15-1 at Section 2160A provides generally that, when a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider, as a result of such losses, are not allowable costs; however, Section 2160.2 specifically includes settlement dollars in excess of the limits of the policy as allowable costs, provided the evidence submitted by the provider to the intermediary (AHCA) shows to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. The policy coverage for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud set the policy limits for each facility at $10,000.00 for each occurrence. Applying the specific section addressing settlement negotiations, the loss covered by insurance would have been $10,000.00 for each facility and the losses in excess of the policy limits--$340,000.00 for Avante at Jacksonville and $80,000.00 for Avante at St. Cloud—would have been allowable costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the interim rate requests for an increase for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 18th day of September, 2008. 1/ The corrected case-style.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 15, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agents in Florida and with regulating their conduct. Section 624.307 and Chapter 626, Part I, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Ingrid Machado was Florida-licensed insurance agent. In March 1999, Teresita Baldor was interested in purchasing health insurance. Ms. Baldor had previously owned a private school and had been insured through the school's group health insurance policy. After she sold the school and began teaching mathematics at Miami-Dade Community College and Saint Thomas University, she no longer had health insurance coverage. On or about March 10, 1999, Ms. Machado met with Ms. Baldor at Ms. Baldor's home. Ms. Baldor knew Ms. Machado only as an insurance agent and did not know whether Ms. Machado was affiliated with an insurance agency. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor during the March 10, 1999, visit that she would try to place Ms. Baldor in a group for health insurance purposes but that she did not know at that time the group Ms. Baldor would be placed in or the name of the insurance company that would provide the health insurance coverage. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor during the visit that she would let Ms. Baldor know the name of the company providing her coverage and that she would send Ms. Baldor the coverage information. During her March 10, 1999, visit to Ms. Baldor's home, Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor for general identification information, such as her name and social security number, and for other information, such as her weight. Ms. Baldor did not sign any document during this visit and cannot recall if Ms. Machado completed any form during their conversation. Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor to make out two checks, one in the amount of $175.00 and one in the amount of $100.00, but Ms. Baldor does not remember Ms. Machado's telling her the reason she needed two separate checks. Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor to leave the line for the name of the payee blank, again telling Ms. Baldor that she did not yet know which insurance company would ultimately provide health insurance coverage to Ms. Baldor. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that the name of the company would be filled in on the checks at a later time. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that she would have health insurance coverage effective March 15, 1999. On or about March 20, 1999, Ms. Baldor telephoned Ms. Machado because Ms. Baldor had not received any information regarding health insurance coverage. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that she was having complications with her pregnancy and could no longer handle Ms. Baldor's insurance matters. Ms. Machado gave Ms. Baldor the telephone number of the "Durey Agency," told her that this agency would work with her to obtain health insurance coverage, and gave her Ray Gonzalez's name. Ms. Machado had no further contact with Ms. Baldor after the telephone conversation on or about March 20, 1999, during the times material to this proceeding. At some point, Ms. Baldor called the telephone number Ms. Machado had given her to find out why she had not received any information regarding her health insurance coverage. Ms. Baldor told the person who answered the phone, a woman named Maria, that she wanted her checks back if she could not give her any information "right then." Later the same day, Maria called Ms. Baldor and told her that she had been placed in a group for health insurance purposes. A Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form was submitted to the Neighborhood Health Partnership on behalf of Ms. Baldor. On the form, Ms. Baldor was identified as an employee of "International Marketing." A signature appeared on the bottom of the form purporting to be that of Ms. Baldor, and the date next to the signature was "5/10/99." Ms. Baldor never saw the Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form. A few weeks after Maria told Ms. Baldor that she had been placed in a group for health insurance purposes, Ms. Baldor received a package from the Neighborhood Health Partnership that contained an identification card indicating that she was enrolled in the "International Marketing Group" and indicating that her insurance coverage with the Neighborhood Health Partnership was effective as of June 15, 1999. During Ms. Baldor's conversations with Ms. Machado, Ms. Machado never mentioned the Neighborhood Health Partnership or International Marketing Group. The checks Ms. Baldor provided to Ms. Machado were made payable to the Durey Insurance Group and were processed by the bank on or about May 17, 1999. In addition, Ms. Baldor wrote checks to the Durey Insurance Group dated July 10, 1999, and August 9, 1999, as payment for her health insurance premiums. Ms. Baldor's insurance coverage with the Neighborhood Health Partnership was eventually cancelled. It was Ms. Baldor's understanding that it was cancelled because the Durey Insurance Group did not remit her premium to the Neighborhood Health Partnership and because the "International Marketing Group" in which she was placed by the Durey Insurance Group did not exist. Summary The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado's actions with respect to her dealings with Ms. Baldor demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness or demonstrated that Ms. Machado lacked reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transaction of insurance. The Department presented no evidence to establish any standards of skill, ability, knowledge, or competence by which Ms. Machado's acts or omissions can be judged to determine if she committed any of the violations with which Ms. Machado is charged. It is not possible to determine from the evidence presented if Ms. Machado's actions deviated from a standard of fitness or trustworthiness which a reasonably prudent insurance agent would be expected to exhibit under the circumstances or if Ms. Machado's conduct fell below a standard establishing the degree of knowledge and technical competence which a reasonably prudent insurance agent would be expected to exhibit under the circumstances. 2/ The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado engaged in any unfair method of competition or deceptive practices or knowingly made any misrepresentations to Ms. Baldor regarding health insurance coverage. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Ms. Machado took some minimal information from Ms. Baldor and told her she would place her in a group for health insurance coverage. The uncontroverted evidence further establishes that Ms. Machado did not represent to Ms. Baldor that she would place Ms. Baldor in any specific group, that she would place Ms. Baldor with any particular insurance company, 3/ or that Ms. Baldor would be provided with any specific coverage or benefits. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado knowingly collected from Ms. Baldor any sums in excess of premium because, at the time Ms. Machado collected the two checks from Ms. Baldor, Ms. Machado did not know which insurance company would write health insurance coverage for Ms. Baldor and, therefore, did not know what the premium would be. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado knowingly collected from Ms. Baldor any premium for insurance that was not, in due course, provided. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Ms. Machado initially agreed to procure health insurance coverage for Ms. Baldor; however, because of her pregnancy, Ms. Machado referred Ms. Baldor to the Durey Insurance Group approximately ten days after Ms. Machado's only meeting with Ms. Baldor and advised Ms. Baldor that the Durey Insurance Group would assist Ms. Baldor in obtaining health insurance. There is no persuasive evidence establishing that Ms. Machado knew or should have known that Durey Insurance Group would not, in due course, provide legitimate health insurance coverage to Ms. Baldor. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Machado had any involvement, directly or indirectly, in the transaction in which the Durey Insurance Group identified Ms. Baldor as an employee of "International Marketing" and obtained health insurance for Ms. Baldor with the Neighborhood Health Partnership as a member of the "International Marketing Group." 4/ Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado's actions made her a source of injury to Ms. Baldor or anyone else. As noted above, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that, soon after Ms. Machado's visit with Ms. Baldor on March 10, 1999, Ms. Machado advised Ms. Baldor that she could not act as Ms. Baldor's agent in placing her with a health insurance company, that she had sent Ms. Baldor's information and checks to the Durey Insurance Group, and that Ms. Baldor should contact the Durey Insurance Group for further assistance. Ms. Baldor's contacts subsequent to the latter part of March 1999 with respect to her health insurance coverage were exclusively with personnel who purported to be affiliated with the Durey Insurance Group. A representative of the Durey Insurance Group notified Ms. Baldor that her health insurance would be provided by the Neighborhood Health Partnership, and Ms. Baldor's premium checks were made payable to the Durey Insurance Group. Finally, the Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form identifying Ms. Baldor as an employee of International Marketing is dated approximately two months after Ms. Machado's last contact with Ms. Baldor, and the Department failed to present any evidence tending to establish that Ms. Machado had any involvement in the preparation of this form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Ingrid Machado. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2000.
