The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to prospective enrollment in the State Group Insurance Program.
Findings Of Fact In or around May 2010, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity hired Petitioner as an "Other Personal Services Employment" ("OPS") worker——a category of state employee that that is not entitled to benefits, and, as a consequence, does not participate in the State Group Insurance Program. Petitioner's entitlement to benefits changed, however, on November 22, 2011, when she was promoted to deputy clerk, which is a career service position. At or around that time, Petitioner was informed that she had 60 days from the effective date of her promotion to enroll in any benefit plan for which she was eligible. Benefits, including insurance plans, are administered by a private contractor, NorthgateArinso, through an online system called "People First." Following her promotion, Petitioner, with the assistance of her supervisor, investigated the benefit plans available to her by accessing the "My Benefits" pages at www.myflorida.com. Subsequently, on December 13, 2011, Petitioner logged on to the People First system with the intent to make her benefit elections and complete her enrollment.1/ Upon entering the website, Petitioner properly clicked on the tab labeled "Health & Insurance," which took her to the "Health & Insurance Home Page." At that point, Petitioner was presented with eight icons from which to choose: General Benefits Information Go to the MyBenefits website for your insurance options. Your Benefits Review your benefits and Flexible Spending Accounts. Insurance Companies See contact information. Your Dependents' Information View and update dependents' information. Benefits Choices Enroll or change your benefits. Benefit Premium History Review your insurance. Required Documentation Review status of your documentation. Benefits Materials View and request insurance forms and booklets. Of the foregoing options, Petitioner correctly selected "Benefits Choices," at which point she was navigated to a page that offered her the ability to register any eligible dependents. Not wishing to add any dependents, Petitioner selected the "Go to Next Step" button, which, in turn, took her to a page that listed "Current Plans." (As Petitioner had not previously made any elections, no health, vision, or dental plans were listed below the tab labeled "Current Plans"). Immediately adjacent to "Current Plans" were eleven other tabs: Health; Flex Spend Acct; Basic Life; Optional Life; Dental; Vision; Accident; Cancer; Disability; Intensive Care; and Hospitalization. From these options, Petitioner first selected "Health," which brought up a list of available health insurance plans. At that point, Petitioner chose the box next to the Coventry Health Care individual health insurance plan. Significantly, however, this action did not finalize Petitioner's selection (as explained shortly, no choices are processed until an employee clicks, on a subsequent web page, the "complete enrollment" button). After choosing——but not finalizing——her health insurance coverage, Petitioner clicked on the "Dental" tab. Although the undersigned credits Petitioner's testimony that she selected the box next to one of the available options, there is an absence of evidence concerning the identity of the plan in which she sought to enroll.2/ Next, Petitioner chose the "Vision" tab, which, similar to the "Health" and "Dental" screens, produced a list of available plans. Of the various choices, Petitioner clicked on the box next to the Coventry Health Care individual vision plan. Significantly, and as alluded to above, benefit elections are not finalized in the People First system until two actions are taken: first, the rectangle labeled "Summary/Last Step" must be selected, which leads to a screen titled "Process Benefit Elections"; and, once taken to the "Benefits Elections Page," the employee must click the shaded rectangle titled "Complete Enrollment." Upon the completion of these steps, a confirmation page appears that lists the employee's name and People First identification number; the page also reads, in pertinent part, "Please save or print for your records . . . This is your confirmation of benefits through the State Group Insurance Program." Notably, the record is devoid of evidence that such a confirmation page was ever generated. While Petitioner's testimony that she "checked the boxes" next to her desired benefits plans has been credited, the undersigned is not persuaded by the greater weight of the evidence that Petitioner completed the process' final two steps on December 13, 2011,3/ or on any other occasion prior to the expiration of the 60-day deadline.4/ On or about January 26, 2012, Petitioner became concerned that she had not received any materials concerning the insurance plans in which she thought she had enrolled. On that date, Petitioner telephoned the People First hotline and, at some point during the conversation that ensued, was informed that there was no record of any benefit elections having been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to enroll in the State Group Insurance Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 4th day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, administrator of the State of Florida group health insurance policy, should pay all covered medical expenses incurred by the Petitioners for non-PPC providers on behalf of their dependent daughter that exceed $3,000 1/ maximum out-of-pocket expense stop loss provision of the policy, despite the part of the stop loss provision that subjects it to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers.
Findings Of Fact Pertinent History of the Insurance Plan. The State of Florida offers group health insurance to its employees, including employees of the State University System, as an optional fringe benefit. Since 1978, the State has self-insured this coverage. The group health insurance coverage is administered by the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance. The Respondent contracts with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida as a third party administrator of the insurance coverage. The State pays part of the premium required for the coverage; the balance of the premium is paid by the employee. Depending on their county of residence, state employees can choose membership in one of several approved health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in lieu of coverage under the State's health insurance plan. When an employee joins an approved health maintenance organization in lieu of the state health insurance plan, the State contributes to the cost of membership to the same extent that it contributes to an employee's insurance premium under its group health insurance plan. Since the State began to self-insure in 1978, coverage under the state group health insurance contained limits on the maximum amount the plan would pay for hospital room and board. The plan also differentiated between the amounts that would be paid under the plan for services rendered by pre-approved "preferred providers" (PPCs). From time to time through the years, the Florida Legislature changed the maximum amounts the plan would pay for various services, and the plan was changed accordingly. But in each version of the plan, there was a distinction made between services rendered by a PPC versus services rendered by a non-PPC. When the State began to self-insure its employee group health insurance benefit on May 1, 1978, it mailed a new, 25-page certificate of insurance to each employee covered by the plan. Whenever a change in the coverage under the state group health insurance plan was occasioned by new legislation, a revised certificate of insurance was mailed to each employee covered by the plan. This occurred in July, 1982, (a 40-page booklet), in August, 1983, (an eight-page addendum), in August, 1985, (a 13-page booklet), and in July, 1988 (a 13-page booklet). Consistent with the master group health insurance policy to which they refer, each of these certificates of insurance are clear that the maximum out- of-pocket "stop loss" feature is subject to certain limitations. In particular, all make clear that the feature is subject to a maximum payment for room and board. Each of these certificates of insurance contains language cautioning the employee that the certificate is not a contract of insurance, that the purpose of the certificate is only to summarize the insurance plan, and that the certificate does not include all covered and non-covered benefits. Each also advises that a copy of the complete contract (the master policy), and the administrative rules under which the plan is administered, could be inspected in the office of the Respondent, as well as in the employee's personnel office. Each advises employees to present questions to their agency personel office or to the Office of State Employee's Insurance. The August, 1985, certificate of insurance reflects a change in the policy to differentiate between PPC and non-PPC providers. It also clearly states that the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy is subject to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers. The July, 1988, certificate also clearly provides that the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy is subject to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers. Both of these certificates were entitled the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Brochure." In addition to the certificates of insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield also printed an abbreviated version of the July, 1988, insurance certificate called the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefits." It is a seven-page document intended for distribution, along with information concerning the various available state-approved HMOs, to all new state employees, who have the opportunity to choose to enroll in the state group health plan, in one of the HMOs, or neither. It also was intended for distribution to all employees during open enrollment periods, when employees have the opportunity to change from an HMO to the state group health insurance, or vice versa, or to drop the benefit. The purpose of the "benefits" document was to give employees information on which to make that choice. Since it was anticipated that it would be mailed to many state employees who ultimately would choose against the state group health insurance plan, the information was condensed to shorten the document to save mailing costs. Only if a new employee (or an old employee during the open enrollment period) chose the insurance would the employee get mailed a certificate of insurance in the mail. Among the information contained in the July, 1988, "benefits" document was an item entitled "Maximum Out of Pocket Expense" that simply listed: "$1500 individual coverage" and "$3000 family coverage." Omitted from the "benefits" document were the limitations on the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature (Finding 7, above) and the language cautioning that it was not a contract (Finding 6, above). Under the heading "Exclusions and Limitations," it states: "Complete list in employee brochure." The last two pages of the document contains two lists, one entitled "Limitations," and the other entitled "Exclusions." Neither list specifies the limitations on the maximum out-of- pocket stop loss feature (Finding 7, above). On the cover of the document, it states: "This brochure replaces any other brochure or booklet printed prior to July 1, 1988, relative to the Plan and shall remain in effect until further notice." The Saffs' Insurance Decision. Edward B. Saff has been a mathematics professor at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, Florida, for 22 years. The Saffs did not prove that they did not receive copies of the May 1978, July, 1982, August, 1983, August, 1985, and July, 1988, certificates of insurance. The Saffs' daughter Lisa, who was born on April 24, 1970, had been diagnosed in June, 1985, as having acute lymphoblastic leukemia. She was treated at the University of South Florida through June, 1988, and seemed to have been cured. During the summer of 1988, the Saffs had occasion to consider the question whether they should obtain health insurance other than, and in addition to, their family coverage under the State employees' group health insurance. Although the Saffs did not prove that they had not received their copies of the May 1978, July, 1982, August, 1983, August, 1985, and July, 1988, certificates of insurance, they apparently did not retain them or at least did not have them readily available to consult. As a result, Dr. Saff asked his secretary to get information on the state employees' group health insurance coverage from the USF personnel office. The evidence was that the Department of Administration has made a copy of the master group health self-insurance policy, and copies of the certificate of insurance, available in all state agency personnel offices, including in the USF personnel offices, for inspection by state employees. The July, 1988, certificate of insurance states: "The agency personnel office will provide needed assistance to State officers and employees enrolling in the Plan; however, such officers or employees should take care to assure that they receive the coverage applied for and that proper deductions are made." But there was no evidence specifically what Dr. Saff told his secretary to ask of his USF personnel office. Dr. Saff's secretary did not testify, and there was no evidence from which a finding can be made as to what the secretary asked for or what the secretary was told by the USF personnel office. But the secretary returned with a copy of the abbreviated version of the July, 1988, insurance certificate (the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefits.") Cf. Findings 8 and 9, above. Based exclusively on the information relayed by Dr. Saff's secretary, i.e., on the abbreviated version of the July, 1988, insurance certificate (the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefits"), with its incomplete information under the heading entitled "Maximum Out of Pocket Expense," the Saffs decided that they did not need any additional health insurance coverage for their daughter Lisa. They reasoned that they could afford the maximum out of pocket expense referenced in the document. They did not seek any further information about the policy before making this decision. The Saffs' Insurance Claim. In August, 1990, Lisa Saff underwent a routine gynecological examination, and a pelvic mass was discovered. The mass was removed surgically at Humana Women's Hospital in Tampa. Cancer of the ovaries was diagnosed, but at first the type of cancer was not identified. After more tests, it was determined that Lisa had suffered a recurrence of her previous cancer, but it was highly unusual for that type of cancer to recur in the ovaries. Since the physicians at Humana Women's and at USF were unfamiliar with the recurrence of the cancer in the ovaries, they recommended that Saffs seek medical care at Sloan-Kettering Hospital in New York City, where Lisa began treatment in the early part of September, 1990. Since starting treatment at Sloan-Kettering, Lisa has been under the care of Dr. Timothy Gee. She was hospitalized at Sloan-Kettering three times in 1990 and approximately twice in 1991. Fortunately, she has responded to treatment and is now on the maintenance portion of her protocol, receiving treatment as an outpatient of the hospital. Sloan-Kettering charges $700 a day for a hospital room and also charges for some other medical services in excess of the PPC fee and charge schedule under the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance policy. In all, the Saffs have incurred $46,870 for medical treatment for Lisa for 1990. As of the date of the final hearing, they incurred $14,439 for medical treatment for Lisa for 1991. They continue to incur medical expenses for Lisa under her maintenance protocol. They have submitted claims for payment under the state group health insurance policy, including all medical expenses during both 1990 and 1991 by which their out-of-pocket expense exceeded $3000 per calendar year. 2/ The Respondent's Position. In response to the Saffs' claims, the Respondent has taken the position that, in accordance with the master policy and the certificate of insurance, the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy is subject to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers. Cf. Finding 7, above. In accordance with that position, the Respondent has paid $18,554 of the Saffs' 1990 claims and $2,162 of the Saffs' 1991 claims. (The Saffs have paid $14,089 of the balance of their 1990 claims and $9,250 of the balance of their 1991 claims.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a final order (1) giving effect to the provision of the group health self-insurance plan that subjects the maximum out- of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers and (2) paying $18,554 of the Saffs' 1990 claims and $2,162 of the Saffs' 1991 claims. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 September, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is required to reimburse the Respondent for prescription drugs acquired by the Petitioner through the Prescription Drug Program of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida during the latter part of 1985 and during 1986. His employment with the State began January 27, 1984. Prior to December 1, 1985, the Petitioner participated in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"). On October 31, 1985, the Petitioner signed a Change of Information form electing to terminate his participation in the State Plan and to begin participation in a Health Maintenance Organization (hereinafter referred to as an "HMO"). The HMO the Petitioner selected was the Capital Health Plan. The title of the form the Petitioner signed on October 31, 1985, contained the following: STATE OF FLORIDA EMPLOYEES GROUP HEALTH SELF INSURANCE PLAN CHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR USE ONLY BY A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THIS PLAN [Emphasis added]. Above the Petitioner's signature was the following "employee authorization": I hereby request the above changes in my coverage and/or insurance information in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan....[Emphasis added] Prior to terminating his coverage under the State Plan, the Petitioner was given a brochure titled "A Comparison of Health Benefit Plans Offered to Employees of the State of Florida" (hereinafter referred to as the "Comparison Brochure"). The brochure was for employees working in North Florida. The Comparison Brochure indicates there are two general types of health insurance plans available to state employees: HMO Benefit Plans and the State Plan. The Comparison Brochure also indicates there are four HMO Benefit Plans available. Capital Health Plan, the plan the Petitioner elected on October 31, 1985, is one of the clearly designated HMO Benefit Plans listed in the Comparison Brochure. The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for Capital Health Plan participants: "$3.00 co-payment at CHP pharmacy." The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for State Plan participants: "PPC provider not available at this time" if a preferred provider is used and "20 percent co-payment (7)" when a non-preferred provider is used. The reference to "(7)" is a footnote which provides: "Prescription Drug Plan will be implemented by 1-1-86, paying 100 percent after nominal dispensing fee." The Comparison Brochure contains the following other pertinent information: Along with the conventional group health self insurance plan administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the State of Florida offers its employees the opportunity to enroll in a different health care arrangement. This arrangement, called a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), is available to eligible employees who live within a specific geographic area surrounding the HMO. The Comparison Brochure contains other information that indicates that the State Plan and the Capital Health Plan HMO are completely different types or methods of obtaining health insurance coverage available to state employees. Based upon the information contained in the Comparison Brochure, which the Petitioner indicated he read, the Petitioner should have known that he was entitled to health insurance benefits under the Capital Health Plan HMO as of December 1, 1985, and that he was not entitled to any health insurance benefits under the State Plan. Sometime after December 20, 1985, the Petitioner received a letter from the Department of Administration which provided in pertinent part: Dear Participant: We are pleased to announce the new Prescription Drug Program. Effective January 1, 1986, coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through a prescription drug program serviced by Paid Prescriptions and National Rx Services, Inc. This program is specifically designed to save you money when you use a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) Pharmacy and Mail Service for your prescription drugs. [Emphasis added]. Included with the letter of December 20, 1985, was a "PLASTIC CARD to use at PPO and participating pharmacies" and a "brochure which gives you instruction on using the Program and a detachable patient profile for Mail Service." The prescription drug card the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed on it. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, which the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed at the top of the front cover of the brochure and elsewhere in the brochure. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, provided the following pertinent information: Coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through the Prescription Drug Program.... A toll-free telephone number was provided on the prescription drug card and the brochure which the Petitioner was instructed could be used if he had any questions. The prescription drug card sent to the Petitioner was sent to all state employees participating in the "State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan." It was not for use by state employees participating in the Capital Health Plan or other HMO's. The card was erroneously sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Because the Petitioner had terminated his coverage under the State Plan and elected to participate in an HMO effective December 1, 1985, he was not entitled to use the prescription drug card which he received from the Respondent. In order for the Respondent to have the prescription drug cards ready to be mailed to participants in the State Plan before January 1, 1986, the Respondent used information concerning participants prior to December 1, 1985. Evidently no effort was made by the Respondent to insure that participants who left the State Plan during the end of 1985 did not receive a prescription drug card. The Respondent did send a memorandum dated December 20, 1985, to Personnel Officers and Insurance Coordinators requesting that they attempt to retrieve prescription drug cards from employees who terminated their participation in the State Plan after November 1, 1985. No one retrieved the Petitioner's card. After receiving his card, the Petitioner spoke to the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where the Petitioner worked for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petitioner asked the business manager whether he could use the card and was told that he did not know but would find out. The business manager later told the Petitioner that he had talked to the district personnel office and been told that the Petitioner could use the card. On February 26, 1986, and February 27, 1986, the Petitioner used the prescription drug card to purchase prescription drugs in south Florida. The Petitioner talked with a physician at Capital Health Plan by telephone before purchasing the medications and was authorized to receive treatment by other than a Capital Health Plan physician. The State was billed $5.82 for the medications purchased with the card on February 21, 1986 and February 26, 1986. On March 1, 1986, the Petitioner again used the card to purchase medications. The card was used in Tallahassee, Florida. The State was billed $63.95 ($55.43 and $8.52) for the medications purchased with the card on March 1, 1986. The Petitioner did not use the card on any other occasion. The Petitioner testified that he did not use the card because he discovered that it was less costly to acquire the medications he needed from Capital Health Plan. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, however, the cost to the Petitioner was the same whether he used the plastic card or Capital Health Plan's pharmacy: $3.00. On or about March 27, 1986 and April 10, 1986, the Petitioner was informed that he had used the card to obtain medications for which use of the card was not authorized. The Petitioner was requested to return the card and to repay the amount incurred for the medications. The Petitioner did not respond to these requests. On August 26, 1986, the Petitioner was sent a letter requesting that he repay the cost of the medications he had acquired with the card. Although the Petitioner was requested to remit $77.02, the evidence only proved that $69.77 of medication was paid for by the State. On August 28, 1986, the Petitioner returned the prescription drug card he had been given to Andrew Lewis, an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner has not reimbursed the State for the cost of the medication he received. The $69.77 of medications paid for by the Respondent which the Petitioner acquired with the prescription drug card provided to him by the Respondent represents a payment on behalf of the Petitioner which he was not entitled to. The card was for use by state employees participating in the State Plan. As of December 1, 1985, the Petitioner was not a participant in this plan. When considered together, the information provided to the Petitioner should have put the Petitioner on notice as to the type of medical insurance coverage he was generally entitled to receive. In particular, the Petitioner should have known that he was eligible for coverage under the Capital Health Plan, an HMO, and that he was not entitled to coverage under the State Plan as of December 1, 1985. The Petitioner also should have known that the prescription drug card he received was for use of participants by the State Plan only and not participants of the Capital Health Plan. The Petitioner's reliance on the statements of the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where he worked was not reasonable in light of the other information which he had been provided about his coverage and the purpose of the prescription drug card he was sent. The Petitioner is not able to repay the $69.77 owed to the State in a lump sum. The Petitioner can only pay the $69.77 to the Respondent in monthly installments of $10.00 or less.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner pay $69.77 to the Respondent for prescription drugs received by the Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4111 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reasons for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 Although the Petitioner did not inten- ionally use the prescription card despite being informed that he was not entitled to it, he should have known that he was not entitled to use it. 2 RO 31. 3 RO 21. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. In light of the information provided to the Petitioner concerning the differences between the State Plan and an HMO, the Petitioner did not use due care to determine if the card was a part of the benefits he was entitled to receive as a participant in an HMO. 5 RO 25. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Walker testified that the coverage available to state employees is not confusing. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. RO 1. 2. RO 2. 3. RO 3-4 and 13-14. 4. RO 15, 18, 21 and 24. 5. RO 21 and 26. 6. RO 27. 7. RO 10. 8. RO 29. 9. RO 30. 10. RO 31. 11. COPIES FURNISHED: RO 36. Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 S. Philip Ford Post Office Box 20232 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
The Issue Whether petitioner owes respondent premiums on account of insurance coverage (Family I) under the State Employees Group Health Insurance Program from March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981? If so, whether petitioner is obligated to pay the underpayment as a condition of continued insurance coverage?
Findings Of Fact Until December 6, 1978, petitioner, who has worked as a forest ranger for Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services since 1967 or 1968, was married to Betty R. Brogdon, the mother of his two children. Betty Brogdon was employed by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the time of the dissolution of her marriage to petitioner. A provision of the dissolution decree required petitioner to maintain health insurance in effect for the children. During the marriage, in April of 1978, petitioner applied for, and received Family I insurance in the Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, continuing the coverage under a predecessor policy. Petitioner paid a premium for the Family I coverage reduced by certain employer contributions, after formally bringing to his supervisor's attention the fact that Betty R. Brogdon was also a state employee, and signing forms to that effect. Before August 1, 1979, the employer contributed 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage for each employee. From August 1, 1979, until August 1, 1980, the employer contributed, in addition, 25 percent of the family premium. On and after August 1, 1980, the employer contribution for each employee increased to 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage plus 50 percent of the family premium. Since this amount exceeds the total premium for Family I, families with this coverage in which both spouses work for state government have paid no insurance premium for Family I coverage since April 1, 1980. After the marriage ended, Betty Brogdon applied, on February 6, 1979, for Individual I health insurance, by submitting a form through the personnel office at the Sunland Center in Marianna, where she was employed. Since she had been a beneficiary under the family policy that her husband kept in force while they were married, her application reflected no change in that policy. When it reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration, it was indistinguishable from any other new application by an employee who had not signed up when beginning work. After medical approval on May 7, 1979, she received Individual I coverage for herself only. Petitioner works with four other forest rangers and a supervisor at a site seven miles west of Marianna. There is no "personnel technician" stationed there and none visits. He told his supervisor of the divorce and, on March 2, 1979, filled out a "personnel action request" form furnished by a district office of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Bonifay, Florida, indicating "[m]arital and dependent change," which reached the Director of the Division of Forestry on March 9, 1979. Like other forms of its kind, this form never reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration. The Bureau of Insurance did receive, however, on August 13, 1981, a "change of information" form reporting the Brogdons' dissolution of marriage on December 6, 1978. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Effective the following month, on advice of the Bureau of Insurance, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services subtracted from petitioner's paychecks the same insurance premium other employees not married to state employees paid for Family I coverage. The Bureau of Insurance lacks authority to make such deductions itself. Between March of 1980 and December 31, 1982, the only claims submitted under the policy were for petitioner himself. But for the $100.00 deductible, these claims were paid. The difference between what a state employee married to another state employee paid for Family I insurance coverage between July 1, 1979, and August 31, 1981, and what a state employee not married to another state employee paid for the same coverage amounts to $864.42.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent direct petitioner to pay the sum of eight hundred sixty-four dollars and forty two cents ($864.42) within ninety (90) days of entry of final order. If petitioner fails to make timely payment, that respondent cancel his Family I State Employees Group Health Insurance Program policy. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the State of Florida's group health insurance plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Judy Stahl began her employment with the State of Florida as a public assistance specialist with the Department of Children and Families on October 4, 1991. She began participating in the State's group health insurance program on December 1, 1991. Petitioner voluntarily terminated her employment by the State on November 28, 2002, for personal reasons. In her letter of resignation she stated that it was her intention to again seek employment with the State after the personal situation which caused her to resign was concluded. Premiums for the State's group health insurance are paid one month in advance. Therefore, Petitioner's coverage under the State's group health insurance program continued through the end of December 2002. In January 2003, the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner of her right to elect continuation coverage under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and the federal Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Petitioner so elected and continued her participation in the State's group health insurance under COBRA for the maximum period of 18 months that was available to her. Her continuation coverage expired June 30, 2004. In May 2004 the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner that her continuation coverage would soon expire and further advised her of her right to convert her insurance coverage to a private, individual policy. Petitioner exercised her option to convert to a private policy, effective July 1, 2004. In March 2005 the Florida Division of Retirement sent Petitioner an Estimate of Retirement Benefits. The Estimate contained the comment that: "As a result of a review of accounts for terminated members, it was determined that you are eligible for retirement benefits." The Estimate form was accompanied by a pamphlet explaining the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan. It was also accompanied by information on the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health plan. The retirement pamphlet included the information that health insurance was available to retirees; however, the health insurance information advised that health insurance was only available to certain retirees. Petitioner concluded that if she retired, she could obtain cheaper health insurance from the State than from her private provider. This was the first time that Petitioner considered the possibility of retirement. Petitioner thereafter made many telephone calls to the Department of Children and Families, to the Division of Retirement, to the Division of State Group Insurance, and to People First, inquiring about retirement and insurance. These telephone inquiries were the first time she mentioned to any State employee or representative that she was interested in retiring. At the end of March 2005 she made the decision to retire and submitted her application for retirement benefits. Her effective retirement date was April 1, 2005. At the time Petitioner filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in the State's group health insurance program. At the time she filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in continuation coverage pursuant to COBRA. She was insured under a private policy. At the time of her initial enrollment in the State group health insurance program, Petitioner signed a new enrollee form that, inter alia, advised her that eligibility and enrollment were governed by the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 22K-l. During her employment she also enrolled in supplemental dental insurance. That enrollment application form notified Petitioner that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the federal Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. Throughout her employment and at the time that she terminated her employment, she completed Annual Benefits Open Enrollment forms, which also notified her that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. While employed by the Department of Children and Families, Petitioner was provided with copies of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document. Those booklets describe eligibility for participation to include employees, certain retirees, and COBRA participants. They also describe termination of coverage due to termination of employment and describe continuation coverage and conversion coverage. At the time Petitioner retired, she was not a State employee; she was a former State employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner is not eligible to participate in the State's group health insurance program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Berkowitz, Esquire Mark J. Berkowitz, P.A. 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Tom Lewis, Jr., Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners, as beneficiaries of their deceased father's life insurance policy, are entitled to a payment of $7,500 in addition to the $2,500 benefit already paid. As set forth more fully herein, since Florida's statutory and rule framework do not require that notice provided to the Division of Retirement be shared with the Division of State Group Insurance, Petitioners did not demonstrate that they are entitled to the additional benefit.
Findings Of Fact The Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI) is an administrative unit located within the Department of Management Services (DMS), and pursuant to Section 110.123(3), Florida Statutes, is designated as the agency responsible for the administration of the State Group Insurance Program (Program). The life insurance program at issue in these proceedings is a part of the Program. DMS has contracted with Northgate Arinso, formerly Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an online system known as "People First." The term "employee benefits" refers to insurance, but not to retirement benefits. People First became the system of record for DSGI benefits data, including addresses, on January 1, 2005. Petitioners Martha L. Kenerson and David R. Kenerson, Jr., are the daughter and son of David R. Kenerson (Mr. Kenerson), a retired employee of the State of Florida, and the beneficiaries of the life insurance that was provided through the Program. Mr. Kenerson died a resident at 156 56th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida, on March 31, 2009. Since Mr. Kenerson's retirement, the State of Florida, through DSGI, has maintained a Group Life Insurance Policy (the Policy) covering the individual lives of its former employees who elected to be covered. The Policy is a benefit available to retirees of the State of Florida which Mr. Kenerson, as a retiree, accepted. The Insured, Mr. Kenerson, was entitled to inclusion in the group of State of Florida retirees who were covered under the Policy that was offered by the State of Florida to its retirees. Mr. Kenerson received a pension for life from the State of Florida. Beginning January 1, 2000, and subsequently, the life insurance coverage was $10,000. It was changed beginning in Plan Year 2007, as to all retirees, due to DSGI's determination of the impending loss of the Advanced Premium Account. As to Mr. Kenerson, it was reduced from $10,000 to $2,500 beginning in Plan Year 2007 for the following reasons: He defaulted in responding to the Open Enrollment Notice; Neither Mr. Kenerson nor anyone on his behalf submitted any notification of election pursuant to such Open Enrollment Notice; and DSGI determined that it was necessary to change the coverage for death benefits because of such impending loss of the Advanced Premium Account. On April 10, 2009, Minnesota Life Insurance Company claims examiner Latrice S. Tillman contacted Petitioner Martha L. Kenerson regarding the death of Mr. Kenerson, asking for the death certificate of the Insured and the Preference Beneficiary Statements from both Petitioners. On April 17, 2009, Petitioners filed the appropriate documents with the Minnesota Life Insurance Company as beneficiaries of Mr. Kenerson's life insurance policy. On May 20, 2009, Petitioners each received a check in the amount of $1,257.59, constituting $1,250 of insurance proceeds (totaling $2,500) and the balance of interest on the $2,500 insurance proceeds. On May 24, 2009, Petitioner Martha L. Kenerson wrote a letter to DSGI requesting an appeal. On June 9, 2009, Ms. Kenerson received a letter dated July 9, 2009, from Michelle Robleto, the Director of DSGI, denying Petitioners' Level II Appeal and informing Petitioners of their right to request a hearing. On June 26, 2009, Ms. Kenerson timely petitioned for an evidentiary hearing regarding Mr. Kenerson's policy. Approximately 29,391 State of Florida retirees were covered under the Policy in Class A (i.e., with initial $10,000 coverage excluding Classes having such initial coverage) at the time when Respondent sent the Change Notice of the proposed changes in coverage that applied also to Mr. Kenerson's Policy. Approximately 5,921 State of Florida retirees were covered under Class A of the Policy and elected, in response to the Change Notice, to increase the premium in order to retain the coverage at $10,000. None of the State of Florida retirees in Class A under the Policy who failed to respond in writing to the Change Notice was contacted by Respondent prior to the effective date of coverage change. Respondent never attempted to call retirees regarding their wishes as to the Change Notice. Respondent has no proof that it spoke with the Insured to explain the proposed change of coverage and/or premium in January 2007. Respondent did not mail the Open Enrollment Notices to retirees by a method that required affirmative identification of the recipient, such as by certified return receipt or other postal proof of delivery. The premiums for the Policy were paid by the State of Florida from Mr. Kenerson's pension as a deduction from the payment of the gross pension payments. From at least January 1, 2003, to the end of the Open Enrollment Period for Plan Year 2007, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) never communicated to Respondent the address that DFS was using for Mr. Kenerson. DFS has a separate and independent data base from that used by Respondent. At no time did DMS send to the Insured c/o Petitioner David R. Kenerson, Jr., any Open Enrollment Notice for any plan year before the 2008 plan year relating to the terms of the Policy. As administrator of the Policy, it is and has been DMS's responsibility to maintain a database of addresses for contacting retirees who are eligible for coverage under the Policy. In August 2002, DMS contracted with Convergys as a third party service provider to perform administrative functions, including the maintenance of the retirees "address of record" database for insurance purposes and for recordkeeping relating to retirees whose lives were insured under the Policy. With respect to the July 31, 2006, mailing to retirees, DMS retained direct control of the stuffing, sending, and addressing of the letters, as well as the collection of mail that was returned as undeliverable. In 2004, DMS delivered to Convergys a copy of the retiree address of record contained in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES), previously maintained only by DMS. Tom Lockridge, Respondent's Benefits Team Manager in 2005, noted his confusion with how many different databases exist that cover retirees of the State of Florida. He was aware that DSGI and the Division of Retirement Services (DRS) each has its own databases. Retirees entitled to enroll in the Policy managed by DSGI are also entitled to pension eligibility or other post- retirement activities managed by DMS, DRS, or the State University System. Since the inception of the DMS website, www.myflorida.com, two separate databases, the People First database and the DRS database, have been maintained. At all times since 2000, Mr. Kenerson was listed as a retiree of the State of Florida in the databases of DSGI and DRS. During the Open Enrollment period for Plan Year 2007 for the Policy, DMS records maintained by Convergys in the "address of record" database showed that Mr. Kenerson lived at 1737 Brightwaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida. DMS, through its agent Convergys, sent the Open Enrollment Notice for Plan Year 2007 for the Policy to Mr. Kenerson at the Brightwaters Boulevard address. In 2001, Mr. Kenerson sent to DRS, but not to DSGI, a written notice of change of address showing his new address as 156 56th Street South, Villa 37, St. Petersburg, Florida. DMS never received an affirmative notice from Mr. Kenerson electing to either adopt the $2,500 coverage; increase to $10,000 in coverage; or terminate his enrollment altogether. In connection with the Open Enrollment notice, DMS contract with Convergys did not require Convergys to seek data from other Florida agencies or divisions to update the database of retirees' addresses and contact information. In connection with the Open Enrollment notice, DMS records management policies did not require DMS personnel to obtain data from other Florida agencies or divisions to update the DMS database of retirees' addresses and contact information. In designing the offered choices on the Open Enrollment notice, DMS allocated $6.33 per month from the Advance Premium Account to subsidize each retiree's premium for Plan Year 2007. Approximately 80 percent of the then-current retirees elected, or were deemed to have elected by default, to reduce their coverage from $10,000 to $2,500 as a result of the Open Enrollment process conducted by DMS. As of October 2006, 24,488 retirees elected the $2,500 life insurance policy for Plan Year 2007, while 4,769 retirees elected the $10,000 coverage. The Open Enrollment notice did not explain why those electing the $10,000 in coverage were required to pay almost eight times the amount of premium charged for $2,500 of coverage ($35.79 per month versus $4.20 per month). A "positive enrollment" means an individual must affirmatively elect each and every benefit or a certain type of benefit. A "passive enrollment" is where, by taking no action, the individual continues to have the same benefit level as previously. Respondent used the "passive enrollment" system for Plan Year 2008, when the life benefit premium changed due to the fact that Convergys would have charged a significant fee (seven figures) to conduct a "positive enrollment." DMS elected not to incur the additional expense. Since the state has designated People First as the system of record for its retirees relating to their benefits and information regarding Open Enrollment, any changes in address are made through the People First system. The agreement between DMS and Convergys does not require Convergys to communicate with other agencies regarding updating of the address of record database for retirees. Convergys, as the contractor to DMS, routinely destroys mail returned as undeliverable after 90 days. Neither DMS nor Convergys maintains a list of "bad addresses," those to which mail has been returned as undeliverable. DMS told Convergys not to synchronize their address database with the Florida Retirement System (FRS) database. DMS was aware that there were retirees who sent address changes to DRS and not to People First. DMS was aware that its address of record database for retirees contained at least some addresses that were not current for some customers. DMS was aware that some number of Open Enrollment packages was returned every year as undeliverable due to incorrect addresses. DMS does not maintain a record of returned Open Enrollment packages. DMS has adopted no rules to record the names and addresses of retirees whose Open Enrollment packages have been returned as undeliverable. DMS has adopted no rules to compare or synchronize the DMS address of record used for Open Enrollment packages with other databases maintained by DMS, DFS, the Florida Department of Revenue, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, local voter registration, or any other State of Florida address lists. DMS has adopted no rules to update the address of record database used by DMS for notices to retirees relating to group term life insurance policies such as the one at issue here. DMS has adopted no rules to create, preserve, or update records, and to destroy names of retirees whose notices are returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable due to no forwarding address. The ultimate custodian of the State of Florida database containing addresses of record for retirees' insurance benefits is Convergys, Inc. At all times from January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2009, the FRS, administered by DMS, has maintained a database of State of Florida retirees that includes their address records in connection with pension and retirement income and expense matters. This FRS database is separate from the address of record database maintained by Convergys/People First for the same period. The letter dated July 31, 2006, relating to the 2007 plan year, advised State of Florida retirees that they could change their election of life insurance benefit up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of DSGI, maintains benefits data for People First/DSGI. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. He created a file used in a mail merge program to send all retirees a copy of the July 31, 2006, letter. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance in July 2006, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record from the benefits data he maintained. The DSGI address of record for Mr. Kenerson in July 2006 was 1737 Brightwaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida 33704, and was included in the mailing addresses file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockridge on July 3, 2006. Thomas Lockridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of DSGI. DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes, a mailing system company, to mail the July 31, 2006, letter to all State of Florida retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the DSGI print shop, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing the names and addresses of the retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters were assembled by Pitney Bowes and delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen, and the State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Kenerson at the Brightwaters address, by first class mail, using the State of Florida permit for DSGI. The return address on the envelope containing the July 31, 2006, letter was DSGI, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 215, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0949. Any letters returned to DSGI as undeliverable were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of DSGI. Each letter returned to DSGI was handled in one of two ways: If the envelope showed a different address on the yellow sticker applied by the U.S. Postal Service, the letter was re-mailed to that address; or If the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of DRS was made; a copy of the print screen showing the address in the DRS database was made, if different from the address on the database of DSGI; and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the DRS database. A copy of each DRS print screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. There was a DRS print screen for every person whose letter was returned and for which there was not another address. The absence of a DRS print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. No DRS print screen exists for Mr. Kenerson, an indication that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to DSGI. Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in COPES. When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits on January 1, 2005, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys/People First system. People First and DRS do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. In addition to the letter discussed at length above, each year, DSGI must hold an "Open Enrollment" period for the health program. Open Enrollment is the period designated by DMS during which time eligible persons, not just State of Florida retirees, may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period for the 2007 plan year ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During Open Enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending Open Enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Kenerson's Open Enrollment package to the Brightwaters Boulevard address on September 3, 2006. The mailing of Open Enrollment packages is noted on the Open Enrollment screen by the Item Code "FSAE." The Open Enrollment packages, like the July 31, 2006, letter to retirees, were mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class prepaid postage. The Open Enrollment package mailed to Mr. Kenerson on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Kenerson's Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of DSGI; Information of Note; a Privacy Notice; a Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and the 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included a detailed description of the reduction in life insurance benefits from $10,000 to $2,500 unless an affirmative election was made to pay a higher premium. Neither Mr. Kenerson nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 for Plan Year 2007. Because the $10,000 life insurance option was not affirmatively made by the Insured or anyone on his behalf, upon his death, Respondent determined that he was entitled to $2,500 in death benefit. For those retirees who did not make a timely election pursuant to the Open Enrollment notice sent in 2006 for Plan Year 2007, the death benefit automatically became $2,500, effective January 1, 2007, for a monthly premium of $4.20. As of Open Enrollment 2005, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending Open Enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. The letter contained in the Open Enrollment package for 2006 for Plan Year 2007 stated as follows: The State conducts a "passive enrollment." If you want to keep the same insurance and benefits plans indicated, you do not have to do anything. Your Flexible Spending Account will be continued at the same annual amounts if no charges are made during Open Enrollment. The reverse side of this letter contains important information regarding changes, new offerings, and reminders regarding processes necessary to ensure a successful enrollment. Please review these items of note. Included in the Open Enrollment package was an "Information of Note" which set forth the reduction in life insurance benefit as well as the amounts to be charged for either the $2,500 or $10,000 benefit. Prior to January 1, 2007, funds in the Advanced Premium Account were applied to payment of costs of life insurance premiums under the policy for retirees. Once the funds in the Advanced Premium Account were depleted, the monthly premium for the $10,000 policy increased significantly to $35.79. DSGI has consistently mailed Open Enrollment packages, including Benefits Guides, to the addresses of record for all retirees, including Mr. Kenerson. Prior to May 1999, Mr. Kenerson actually resided at the Brightwaters Boulevard address, which had been his address of record since at least 1988. DSGI had mailed all correspondence to that address for Mr. Kenerson. In the past, DSGI had mailed, from time to time, newsletters to retirees. These newsletters were mailed to the addresses of record for the retirees. The newsletter for January-March 1999 contains the telephone number and address for DSGI and the following notice under the heading "Reminder Tidbits": "Notify both the Division of Retirement and the Division of State Group Insurance in writing if your mailing address changes." The newsletter for July-September 1999 contained the following: "Q. What if I do not receive my Open Enrollment package? A. If you do not receive the Open Enrollment package by September 17, contact the Division of State Group Insurance. You should also confirm your mailing address when you call." Prior to Mr. Kenerson moving from the Brightwaters Boulevard address, notices mailed to him there included notification that retirees were required to update any changes in address with DSGI. Throughout the years, the Benefits Guides that are included in the Open Enrollment packages have informed all program participants of their responsibility to maintain a current address with DSGI. Even if Mr. Kenerson had changed his address with DRS, such update would not have been provided to DSGI. Neither DSGI nor DRS notifies the other of receipt of a change of address. A change of address with one division of DMS does not automatically change the address in another since the two divisions have separate databases. Within DMS there is no centralized database of records containing addresses of record for all DMS functions. Retirees and active employees of the State of Florida are not required to have one address of record for all functions and services received through DMS. In fact, many State of Florida employees have different addresses for different DMS division functions. DSGI and DRS serve different functions and do not share databases. DRS consists of all retirees who participate in FRS, including local governments. The total number of individual participants is over 300,000. The synchronization of databases would be an expensive undertaking and no funding has been provided to synchronize DSGI with DRS or any other state agency or public entity. No evidence demonstrated that Mr. Kenerson informed DSGI in any way that he desired to maintain his $10,000 life insurance benefit, or that DSGI assumed or accepted that responsibility.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 10th day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martha Lynne Kenerson, Esquire Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10170 William B. Bierce, Esquire Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10170 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, and a Disability Agent licensed by the State of Florida. During this period, Respondent was licensed to sell life and health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company, American Guaranty Life Insurance Company, and Old Southern Life Insurance Company. Respondent was employed as an agent by Diversified Health Services, an insurance agency whose office is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. At no time material hereto was Respondent employed by any agency of the State of Florida. As indicated above, there remain viable in the Administrative Complaint ten counts charging Respondent with various violations of provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. For purposes of clarity, the findings of fact with regard to each of those remaining counts will be set forth separately. COUNT I On February 12, 1983, Respondent visited Lucille Shock at her home in Bradenton, Florida. Mrs. Shock had earlier purchased a Medicare supplement policy from National States Insurance Company through another agent, but had decided to cancel that policy. Respondent visited Mrs. Shock's home in response to her notice of cancellation in hopes of persuading her to reinstate coverage. In paragraph three of Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mrs. Shock that he was ". . . authorized by the Florida Department of Insurance to investigate the Diversified Health Agency" when, in fact, he was not employed by any state agency. While it is true that Respondent was not at the time of his visit to Mrs. Shock employed by any state agency, the record in this cause is insufficient to establish the foregoing allegation of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent denies having made any c representation to Mrs. Shock that he was employed by the State of Florida. Further, Mrs. Shock's testimony in this regard is inconsistent and conflicting. In a February 21, 1983, letter to a representative of the Florida Department of Insurance, Mrs. Shock stated that at the time of his visit to her home the Respondent represented that he ". . . was an investigator for the Diversified Health Agency. . . . At final hearing, Mrs. Shock testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for the "insurance department," but also, on cross-examination, testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for Diversified Health. Despite these inconsistencies, it is clear from the record in this proceeding that before the end of Respondent's visit with Mrs. Shock on February 12, 1983, she knew that Respondent was an insurance agent for National States Insurance Company. Because of the inconsistencies in Mrs. Shock's testimony, it is specifically concluded that her testimony concerning Respondent's representation about his employment is unreliable. Other than Mrs. Shock's testimony, there is no other record basis to establish that Respondent represented himself to be an employee of the Department of Insurance as alleged in Count I. Respondent is also charged in paragraph five of Count I of the Administrative Complaint with having "falsely represented the financial condition of several insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida as part of your sales presentation to induce Mrs. Shock to buy insurance policies from you." The record in this cause establishes that Respondent and Mrs. Shock discussed several insurance companies, including Vulcan Insurance Company, Tara Life Insurance Company, and Bankers Life during their visit on February 12, 1983. Respondent reviewed with Mrs. Shock data contained in certain A. M. Best Company reports concerning these insurance companies.Respondent advised Mrs. Shock that Vulcan Insurance Company was "a rather shaky company" and that Tara Life Insurance Company had been experiencing "financial problems." There is, however, nothing of record in this proceeding to establish either that these companies are licensed in Florida or that the representations made by Respondent to Mrs. Shock concerning these insurance companies were false. Accordingly, the allegations contained in paragraph five of Count I have not been established. COUNT II On or about February 10, 1983, Respondent visited Koy B. Cook at his home in Port Orange, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mr. Cook was to dissuade Mr. Cook from cancelling a policy with National States Insurance Company whichir. Cook had previously bought from another agent. After buying the National States policy initially, Mr. Cook had attempted to cancel a preexisting policy with Bankers Life Insurance Company, but had been advised by that company that the policy could not be cancelled. Mr. Cook determined that he could not afford duplicated coverage, so he contacted National States Insurance Company and advised them of his desire to cancel his National States policy. Be was advised, in writing, by National States, that his policy had been cancelled and that his premium had been returned to the insurance agency which had sold him the policy for refund. Sometime prior to January 12, 1983, Respondent contacted Mr. Cook by telephone, identified himself by name, and arranged an appointment to visit with Mr. Cook in his home. Mr. Cook understood from the conversation with Respondent that the purpose of their appointment was to return Mr. Cook's refund check from his cancelled National States policy. Immediately prior to Respondent's arrival at Mr. Cook's home, Mr. Cook had been asleep. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Cook's door, Mr. Cook was still in a "daze," having just awakened. This fact is of significance, because at various times in his testimony Mr. Cook testified that Respondent identified himself as . . . an adjuster with Bill Gunter out of Tallahassee, or . . . an adjuster for the insurance company out of Tallahassee." Mr. Cook also testified that Respondent showed him some identification which bore a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter. This photograph was apparently attached to a document, the contents of which were unknown to Mr. Cook. Respondent denies having represented that he was an employee of the Department of Insurance. During the course of their conversation, Mr. Cook advised Respondent that he preferred the coverage offered under the National States policy to that of the Bankers Life policy, but simply could not afford duplicate coverage. Respondent and Mr. Cook discussed the amount of unearned premium outstanding on the Bankers Life policy as compared to the cost of reinstating the National States policy. Mr. Cook had originally paid $630 for the issuance of the National States policy. Respondent returned to Mr. Cook a check in that amount during the course of their visit. Further, by offering to reinstate the National States policy for a $526 annual premium, Respondent demonstrated to Mr. Cook that he would save approximately the amount that remained in unearned premiums on the Bankers Life policy. Mr. Cook agreed to this proposal, Respondent completed an application form, and Mr. Cook gave Respondent a check for approximately $526 to reinstate the National States policy, with the understand- ing that the National States and Bankers Life policies would overlap for some period of time. Upon leaving Mr. Cook's house, Respondent gave Mr. Cook one of his business cards, which identi- fied Respondent as an agent of National States Insurance Company. In Count II of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mr. Cook that he was an "insurance adjuster working out of Tallahassee" and that he "worked for the Florida Department of Insurance. Respondent is further charged with having told Mr. Cook that he "had a refund check for a cancelled Bankers Life policy when in fact the] had no such check." The testimony of Mr. Cook and Respondent on the issues alleged in Count II are diametrically oooosed. Viewing the transaction between Mr. Cook and Respondent in its totality, it is concluded that Respondent's version of the transaction is the more credible. Mr. Cook's testimony concerning Respondent's representations about his employment status contained several contradictions and inconsistencies. In addition, it is clear that Mr. Cook expected to receive a refund check from National States Insurance Comoany, that Mr. Palesky contacted him by telephone prior to his February 10 visit to advise him that he had his refund check, and that Respondent conducted himself during the entire transaction in a manner which clearly identified him as an insurance salesman. Finally, Respondent furnished Mr. Cook with a business card during the course of their meeting which clearly showed Respondent to be an agent of National States Insurance Company. It is also clear that Mr. Cook was aware during this entire transaction that his Bankers Life policy had not been cancelled, and that as a result of his transaction with Respondent he would be carrying policies with National States and Bankers Life which afforded duclicate coverage, and that he was advised of this fact by Respondent. These facts are clearly inconsistent with Mr. Cook's testimony that Respondent advised him that he had a refund for a cancelled Bankers Life policy in his possession. COUNT IV On or about March 2, 1982, Respondent visited Marjorie Brubaker in her home in Bradenton, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mrs. Brubaker was to dissuade her from cancelling an insurance policy with National States Insurance Company which she had previously purchased through another agent and had subsequently cancelled. Mrs. Brubaker testified that, upon arrival at her home, Respondent represented to her that he was an "investigator for the state" or a "state investigator," looking into her cancellation of her policy with National States Insurance Company. Respondent denies having made that representation. The record is clear, however, that shortly after entering Mrs. Brubaker's home, Respondent showed Mrs. Brubaker materials which clearly identified him as an agent of National States Insurance Company, and that Mrs. Brubaker clearly understood within minutes after his entering her home that he was, in fact, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, it is specifically found that Respondent's testimony concerning his employment status is more credible. If, as is clear from the record, Respondent intended to sell insurance to Mrs. Brubaker, there is little logic to his having represented himself as a state employee at the door to her home, and within minutes clearly divulging to her that that was indeed not the case. Petitioner also alleges in the Administrative Complaint that Respondent displayed a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter to Mrs. Brubaker to establish his position as an investigator for the state. Mrs. Brubaker, however, was unable to identify the person in the photograph displayed to her by Respondent, other than to assert that the person in the photograph was not the Respondent, but instead a clean-shaven person with light hair and fair, reddish complexion. Those facts, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the person in the photograph was, in fact, Mr. Gunter. Respondent is alleged in paragraph twenty of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint of having ". . . . falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in this state in order to induce Mrs. Brubaker to purchase' new insurance policies from you." The only evidence in the record on this issue is Mrs. Brubaker's testimony that Respondent told her that Blue Cross-Blue Shield would soon cease to be the Medicare carrier in Florida, and that there existed a substantial possibility that National States Insurance Company would be designated as the new Medicare carrier in Florida. The record in this cause is absolutely devoid of any evidence that that representation, even if it had been made, was false. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish facts to support the allegations that Respondent has falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in Florida. Finally, paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent falsely told Mrs. Brubaker that her present insurer, Orange State Life Insurance Company, was cancelling its Medicare Supplement policies. . . . It is undisputed that Mrs. Brubaker, at the time she was visited by Respondent, had insurance coverage through Orange State Life Insurance Company. Mrs. Brubaker, it is clear from the record, was under the impression that her policy with Orange State Life Insurance Company was a Medicare supplement policy. Respondent testified that her policy was not a Medicare supplement policy, and, in fact, bore a statement across the top of the policy to the effect that the policy was not a Medicare supplement policy. Petitioner offered no evidence to rebut Respondent's testimony in this regard, and neither party sought to introduce the policy into evidence. The only evidence offered by Petitioner to support the allegation that Respondent's representation that Orange State Life Insurance Company was cancelling its Medicare supplement policv was the fact that Mrs. Brubaker had continued to pay premiums on her policy after the representation was made by Respondent without receiving notice of any cancellation. However, any inference that might be drawn from continued payment of premiums fails if, in fact, the policy held by Mrs. Brubaker was not a Medicare supplement policy. Neither party having offered competent evidence to establish that Mrs. Brubaker's Orange State Life Insurance Company policy was in fact a Medicare supplement policy, the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint are deemed to be without factual support. COUNT VI In Count VI f the Administrative Complaint, it is alleged that Respondent visited the home of Leila Mueller on October 18, 1979. It is further alleged that at that time Respondent told Mrs. Mueller that he was ". . . from Medicare and that [Respondent] had called at one of [Mrs. Mueller's] neighbor's homes to explain the changes in Medicare coverage." It is further alleged that Respondent ". . . misrepresented [his] actual employment in order to induce Mrs. Mueller to buy insurance policies. The record in this cause establishes that on or about October 18, 1979, Mrs. Mueller was visited in her home by two insurance salesmen whom she believed to be in some way affiliated with Medicare. Mrs. Mueller did not recall the names of either of the two men, was not asked to physically identify the Respondent, and could not recall which of the two men led her to believe that they were affiliated with "Medicare." Mrs. Mueller inquired about whether there existed any written material that she could review to decide whether to purchase insurance coverage. One of the men furnished her a brochure which had the name "Palesky" on it. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to establish that Respondent was ever in the home of Mrs. Mueller or that he in any fashion ever represented to her or to anyone else that he was a representative of Medicare. The only testi- mony in this record that in any way connects Respondent with Mrs. Mueller was her testimony that she was given a brochure, which was not introduced into evidence, containing Respondent's name. This fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the factual allegations contained in Count VI of the Adminis- trative Complaint. COUNT XI On or about March 21, 1982, Respondent visited William F. and Winifred M. Bell in their home in Sarasota, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to the Bells was to sell them a Medicare supplement policy. The Bells had previously purchased a policy from Union Fidelity Insurance Company. During the course of Respondent's visit with the Bells, Respondent advised them that Union Fidelity was "not a good company" and that the policy they had with Union Fidelity was "not a good policy." In addition, Respondent advised the Bells that if anything happened to Mr. Bell that Mrs. Bell would not be insured within two months after Mr. Bell's death. Paragraph fifty-five of Count XI of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent told the Bells ". . . that their present insurance coverage was no good" and that if Mr. Bell died, Mrs. Bell would not be insured when in fact [Respondent] knew that both of those statements were false." The record in this cause contains no evidence that the representations set forth above made by Respondent to the Bells were false. The Bells' insurance policy was not received into evidence because Petitioner failed to respond fully to Respondent's Request for Production of Documents, and had further failed to fully exchange exhibits with Respondent, including a copy of the Bells' policy, as required by the Pre-hearing Order entered by the Hearing Officer approximately two months prior to the date set for final hearing in this cause. Accordingly, there are no facts to substantiate the allegations contained in Count XI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XII On or about February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Louise S. Donovan at her home in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in response to her cancellation of a previous policy purchased from National States Insurance Company from another agent on or about November 17, 1982. Soon thereafter, she cancelled that policy but on December 22, 1982, reinstated the policy after having available coverages explained to her by the other agent. Sometime thereafter she again can- called the National States policy. By letter dated January 17, 1983, from the home office of National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Donovan was advised that her refund-check had been returned to her agency for refund to her. On February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in her home. Under direct examination, Mrs. Donovan testified as follows concerning that visit: Q So, you showed [the January 27, 1983] letter to Mr. Palesky; and, how did he respond to the letter? A He said sort of -- it's a little vague now after all these months -- that, oh, well, they didn't pay any attention to those things, or some- thing like that, and that the company would not refund any money on the policy. Q Be made the statement to you that the company was not going to refund? A The company would not -- now, I believe his interpretation of that, but it wasn t clear to me, was that there was a certain clause in that policy that I was not satisfied with and that he would not reissue the same policy under the same conditions. Well, I'm a lay person. I don't know all these fine points. And, I under- stood that he meant that the company would not refund any money to me at all... During the course of their discussions, Mrs. Donovan advised Respondent that she had cancel led the policy because she did not have nursing home coverage. Respondent explained to her that, under those circumstances she would have to either add nursing home coverage to the policy she had cancelled, which he was not sure that he could do for her because the so-called "RS 100 feature" was in the process of being discontinued, or she could take out a separate nursing home policy. Resnondent advised her that in order to keep the RS 100 feature she would have to reinstate the policy which she had cancelled, and take out a separate nursing home policy at a later date. This is the option which Respondent recommended to Mrs. Donovan, and the option that she ultimately chose. Accordingly, Mrs. Donovan opted to fill out an application reinstating the cancelled policy. She had originally paid $659 for the policy she took out on December 22, 982, but premium rates had increased since that time. The application filled out by Mrs. Donovan on February 4, 1983, reflects the premium rate increased to $691. Mrs. Donovan testified that she did not recall endorsing a refund check in the amount of $659 from National States Insurance Company and allowing Respondent to submit the endorsed check to National States along with the application dated February 4, 1983. Respondent testified that she did, in fact, endorse that check, which he forwarded to National States Insurance Company with the February 4, 1983, application. According to Respondent's testimony, which is uncontradicted, he submitted the $659 check to National States, notwithstanding the fact that the premium rate had increased to $691, with the understanding that the company had the option of either reinstating the policy for $659 or insisting upon the increased premium rate. Thereafter, Mrs. Donovan again decided to cancel the coverage she received as a result of the February 4, 1983, application submitted through Respondent. Mrs. Donovan signed a sworn statement on March 30, 1983, which provided, in part, as follows: Mr. Palesky has shown me the com- plaint filed against him by the Department of Insurance. I totally disagree with the accusa- tions in the complaint. My only problem with Mr. Pale sky was a misunderstanding concerning the fact that the RS 100 rider could not be refunded and reissued (as it was being discontinued) [sic] I thought he meant the entire policy could not be refunded. . . . Count XII of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent ". . . refused to return [premium] money to Mrs. Donovan. . ., and that ". . . as a result of your refusal Mrs. Donovan felt pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium." Further, Count XII alleges that ". . . the new policy was written for a higher premium, that [Resoondent] signed a receipt acknowledging receipt of the higher premium, and that Mrs. Donovan gave [Respondent] no money during [the] visit [of] February 4, 1983." The evidence in this cause does not establish that Respondent refused to return premium money to Mrs. Donovan, nor does the evidence establish that Mrs. Donovan was pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium. Finally, the evidence in this cause establishes that Respondent attempted to have National States Insurance Company reinstate Mrs. Donovan's coverage at the premium originally paid in December of 1982, notwithstanding a premium increase that had occurred in the interim, a procedure which has not been shown by the record in this cause to be in any way improper. COUNT XV On or about January 24, 1983, Kenneth E. Fritz bought a National States Insurance Company policy from an agent other than Respondent. On or about February 12, 1983, Mr. Fritz cancelled that policy and asked for a full refund. Mr. Fritz subsequently received a letter dated March 11, 1983, from National States Insurance Company acknowledging his request for cancellation, and advising him that a full refund of his premium was being sent to the agency office which had sold the policy to him, with instructions to deliver the refund to him. On or about March 24, 1983, Respondent visited Mr. Fritz in his home in Largo, Florida, with Mr. Fritz' refund check. In paragraph eighty-eight of Count XV of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having ". told Mr. Fritz that [Respondent was] an `investigator with Florida' and that [Respondent] pointed to an emblem on [Respondent's] jacket which gave [Mr. Fritz] the idea [Respondent was] employed by the State of Florida' when in fact [Respondent was] not and are not employed by the Florida Deoartment of Insurance in any capacity." It is further alleged that Resoondent made this representation to influence Mr. Fritz to buy insurance policies, and that Mr. Fritz did not realize that Respondent was not a government employee until reading a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, concerning the emergency suspension of Respondent's licensed. Respondent denies ever having represented to Mr. Fritz that he was an employee of the State of Florida. Indeed, Mr. Fritz testified on this issue only that: Mr. Palesky came here, and he had a thing on his coat, and he says[sic] you bought some policies from the -- and he mentioned the name of the company in St. Louis, and he says[sic] I'm here to check on that, and he rattles this thing and give [sic] me the impression that he was the--was from the State of Florida checking this. . . . As mentioned above, Respondent is charged with representing to Mr. Fritz that Respondent was an "investigator with Florida." Nothing contained in the record in this cause establishes that Respondent ever made such a representation to Mr. Fritz. Indeed, Mr. Fritz clearly testified that he could not remember exactly what Respondent said to him to give him the "impression" that he was an employee of the State of Florida. It is, however, clear from the record in this cause that the allegation of the Administrative Complaint that Mr. Fritz did not know that Respondent was not a state employee until reading of Respondent's emergency suspension in a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, is false. What is clear is that Respondent made a sales presentation to Mr. Fritz which resulted not only in Mr. Fritz' reinstating the policy he had earlier purchased from another agent and cancelled, but in fact buying another policy from Respondent at the same time. It is also clear that Respondent gave Mr. Fritz a business card during the course of their conversation which clearly identified Respondent as a salesman for National States Insurance Company. In short, this record does not establish that Respondent ever represented himself as an employee of the State of Florida during the course of his sales presentation to Mr. Fritz, nor did Mr. Fritz reinstate his cancelled policy and purchase a second policy based upon any such representation. COUNT XVII On April 15, 1981, Esther Huddleson purchased two Medicare supplement policies issued by National States Insurance Company from agent Michael Frye. On April 16, 1901, she requested a refund on the National States policies. On June 1, 1981, she was visited in her home by Respondent. Count XVII alleges that Respondent falsely advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "insurance investigator" and an "investigator for the State." It is also alleged that Respondent was not an "investigator" for National States Insurance Company and that his status with the company had always been that of a sales representative. Further, it is alleged that Respondent ". . . falsely told Mrs. Huddleson her statutory `free look' had expired and so persuaded her to sign a conservation notice." It is clear from the record in this proceeding that Respondent never advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "investigator for the State" or in any other manner employed by the State of Florida or the Department of Insurance. A sworn statement signed by Mrs. Huddleson upon which she was closely interrogated by counsel and the Bearing Officer during the course of this proceeding clearly reflects that Respondent identified himself either as "an investigator from National States Insurance Company" or "States Insurance Company." Fur ther, there is no evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that this representation by Respondent was in any way false. Finally, the only testimony in the record in this cause concerning Mrs. Huddleson's statutory "free look" period occurred on the direct examination of Mrs. Buddleson as follows: Q Did [Respondent] lead you to believe that your 30-day period had passed? A yes. At least, that was in my mind. Mrs. Buddleson's testimony in this regard is, at best, equivocal, and does not persuasively establish that Respondent did, in fact, advise her that her "free look" period had expired as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. There is, accordingly, insufficient evidence of record in this proceeding to establish the allegations against Respondent contained in Count XVII of the Administrative Complaint. The Bearing Officer feels constrained, further, to note with concern the failure of Petitioner's counsel to deal with both Mrs. Huddleson's sworn statement and direct testimony concerning the fact that Respondent never represented himself to her to be an employee of the State of Florida. In fact, to say that Petitioner's counsel failed to deal with those issues is most charitable. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the proposed findings submitted by Petitioner's counsel on this particular issue have absolutely no factual basis in this record, despite citations to a portion of the transcript purportedly supporting the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXI In December of 1982 Mary Ellen Stapleton purchased a Medicare supplement policy from an agent, other than Respon- dent, representing National States Insurance Company. After reviewing the policy and deciding that she did not want to retain it, Mrs. Stapleton returned the policy on or about February 8, 1983, to National States Insurance Company, and requested a refund of her premium. Through a series of correspondence with National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Stapleton's cancellation request was acknowledged, and she was advised that her premium refund had been returned to the office of the agency selling the policy, with instructions to make immediate delivery to her. On or about March 8, 1983, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home and advised her that he was an investigator for National States Insurance Company and that he was investigating a Mr. Buffer, who had sold Mrs. Stapleton her National States policy. Count XXI, in pertinent part, alleges: That on or about March 8, 1983, you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home in Lakeland, Florida, and told her you were "an investigator for National States and [that you were] investi- gating Mr. Buffer" when in fact you were not and are not an investigator for National States Insurance Company but were and are only a salesman. That at no time did you tell Mrs. Stapleton that you represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. That you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, created the false impression of your employ- ment status in order to induce Mrs. Stapleton to keep the [cancelled] policy. . Respondent did not tell Mrs. Stapleton that he represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent was, on March 8, 1983, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Petitioner has not established by any evidence whatsoever that Respondent was not an investigator for National States Insurance Company with authority to investigate Mr. Buffer. Neither has it been shown in this record that Respondent was under any obligation to identify the insurance agency by whom he was employed after having first clearly identified himself as being affiliated with National States Insurance Company. It is, therefore, specifically concluded that there are no facts of record to establish the violations alleged in Count XXI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXII On September 24, 1980, Respondent visited John Capers Smith and Lillian H. Smith in their home in Bradenton, Florida. Respondent went to the Smiths' home in response to the Smiths having sent a card to National States Insurance Company requesting information concerning Medicare supplement policies. Upon his arrival at the Smiths' home, Respondent was advised by Mrs. Smith initially that she did not wish to speak with him further on that day because her husband had recently undergone surgery and was still recuperating. However, uoon Respondent's insistence, he was admitted to the Smiths' home at approximately 1:00 p.m. Respondent remained in the Smiths' home until approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 24, 1980. When he first arrived in the Smiths' home, Respondent told the Smiths that he worked for the State of Florida and that Bill Gunter was his boss. In the course of discussing National States Insurance Company policies, Respondent advised the Smiths that this type of policy was something that Mr. Gunter was attempting to do to assist elderly Floridians. During the course of his conversation with the Smiths, Respondent displayed a photograph of Mr. Gunter to the Smiths as proof of his affiliation with the State of Florida, and offered to call Mr. Gunter on the telephone to verify his credentials. After a long period of discussion, the Smiths purchased an insurance policy from Respondent, and gave him a check for $694. The Smiths' purchase of the policy was due in large part to Respondent's representation that he was an employee of the State of Florida, and that Mr. Gunter approved of the policy. Respondent denies having made any representation to the Smiths concerning his employment by the State of Florida, but, under the circumstances here present, it is specifically concluded that the Smiths' versions of the transaction occurring on September 24, 1980, are more credible.
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue Whether the Department of Management Services properly denied medical insurance reimbursement to Petitioner, a covered dependent of a state employee insured by the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization health plan, for Genotropin recombinant growth hormone prescribed for the treatment of long- term growth failure associated with idiopathic short stature.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The state group insurance program is a package of insurance plans offered to, among others, state employees and their dependents. § 110.123(2)(k), Fla. Stat.1/ Petitioner Arturo Puerto is insured as a dependent of a state employee, and is a participant in the state's group self- insured plan, known as the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization health plan ("PPO plan" or "state plan"). The state plan includes a state employees' prescription drug program. § 110.12315, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to Section 110.123(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the Department is responsible for contract management and day- to-day management of the state employee health insurance program. Section 110.123(5)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to contract with an insurance carrier or professional administrator to administer the state plan. The current contract provider of the state plan's pharmacy program is CareMark Inc. ("CareMark"). However, the Department makes all final decisions concerning the existence of coverage or covered benefits under the state plan. The Department's authority in this regard may not be delegated to a contract provider. § 110.123(5), Fla. Stat. Petitioner was born on February 12, 1992. On or about February 3, 2009, Petitioner's physician prescribed Genotropin, a recombinant growth hormone ("GH")2/ approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as therapy for short stature, including idiopathic short stature ("ISS"). ISS is short stature that does not have a diagnostic explanation, in an otherwise healthy child. ISS is also called "non-GH-deficient short stature." The Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document, effective January 1, 2007, as modified on January 1, 2009, includes the terms and conditions of participation in the PPO plan and the benefits provided by the PPO plan. The booklet and benefits document contains a section describing the prescription drug program. Participants in the PPO plan are automatically enrolled in the prescription drug program, which features a network of retail pharmacies and a mail order program. The participant makes a co-payment for covered prescriptions. The booklet and benefits document sets forth a list of drugs that are covered, and a list of drugs that are not covered under the prescription drug program. Under the heading "Important Information about the Prescription Drug Program," the document states the following concerning specialty medications:3/ 5. Certain medications, including most biotech drugs, are only available through Caremark Specialty Pharmacy Services. Generally, these drugs are for chronic or genetic disorders including, but not limited to, multiple sclerosis, growth deficiency and rheumatoid arthritis and may require special delivery options, (i.e. temperature control). Caremark Specialty Pharmacy provides 24/7 access and can be contacted at 1-800-237-2767. * * * 12. As part of the Caremark Specialty Services, Caremark will administer the Advanced Guideline Management program for the State Employees' PPO Plan. Advanced Guideline Management is intended to optimize outcomes and promote the safe, clinically appropriate and cost-effective use of specialty medications supported by evidence based medical guidelines. Failure to meet the criteria for Advanced Guideline Management during the respective use review will result in denial of medication coverage for the Plan participant and discontinuation of medication coverage for the Plan participant in the case of concurrent use review. The Advanced Guideline Management Program is a process by which authorization for a specialty medication is obtained based on the application of currently acceptable medical guidelines and consensus statements for appropriate use of the medication in a specific disease state. Therapies reviewed under the Specialty Guideline Management Program include, but are not limited to, the following: multiple sclerosis, oncology, allergic asthma, human growth hormone, hepatitis C, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and respiratory syncytial virus. Additional therapies may be added from time to time.... CareMark's current guideline covering Genotropin and similar GH medications is set forth in a 2008 CareMark document titled, "Specialty Pharmacy Program for Growth Hormone and Endocrine-Metabolic Disorders." The document contains flow charts describing the criteria employed by CareMark to determine coverage for specific conditions. Among the criteria set forth in the flow chart for prescribing GH to children with ISS is the following question: "Does pre-treatment growth velocity and height meet the AACE (American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists) criteria for short stature?" (See Appendix N). If the answer to the question is "no," then the criteria direct that coverage for the prescription of GH should be denied. Appendix N sets forth the following "AACE criteria for short stature": < -2.25 standard deviations below the mean for age and sex based on patient's growth rate, adult height prediction of less than 5'3" for boys and less than 4'11" for girls. Appendix N is based on the AACE's "Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for Growth Hormone Use in Adults and Children-- 2003 Update" and a December 2003 AACE Position Statement on growth hormone usage in short children.4/ The CareMark document is not explicit as to whether the quoted elements of the AACE criteria for short stature are to be considered in the disjunctive. However, the AACE Position Statement expressly states that GH use is indicated for ISS only for children whose height is "< - 2.25 standard deviations below the mean and have an adult height prediction of less than 5'3" for boys and less than 4'11" for girls." (Emphasis added.) The height standard deviation criterion used by CareMark to determine the appropriateness of Genotropin therapy as a treatment for ISS was shown to be consistent with FDA criteria and the specifications established by Pfizer, the manufacturer of Genotropin. The medical records submitted on behalf of Petitioner show that at the time Genotropin therapy was prescribed in February 2009, Petitioner's height was 162.5 cm (5'4"). This was 1.66 standard deviations below the mean for his age and sex. Untreated, his predicted final height was 164 cm (5'4 1/2"). At the time Genotropin therapy was prescribed, Petitioner did not meet the height standard deviation requirement. His height standard deviation was 1.66 standard deviations below the mean. The deviation required by the CareMark criteria was greater than 2.25 standard deviations below the mean. At the time Genotropin therapy was prescribed, Petitioner did not meet the adult height prediction requirement. Petitioner was already 5'4" tall and was projected to reach a height of 5'4 1/2" without treatment. The CareMark criteria required a projected adult height without treatment of 5'3" or below. The PPO plan denied payment for the Genotropin therapy because Petitioner did not meet criteria established by CareMark through its Specialty Pharmacy Program guidelines. The booklet and benefits document makes no provision for exceptions to strict conformity to the CareMark criteria. At the hearing, Petitioner's representative acknowledged that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for Genotropin therapy, but requested that the Department order such coverage as an exception to the criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance enter a final order denying coverage for Petitioner's prescription for Genotropin therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 2010.
