|
| Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar |
|
Maine.gov
> PFR Home
> Insurance Regulation
> Hearing Decision Index
> Document 29 : INS 99-14 : Hearing Decision
November 3, 1999
BY HAND DELIVERY
Alessandro A. Iuppa, Superintendent of Insurance c/o Lyndy Morgan Docket No. INS-99-14 Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation Bureau of Insurance 124 Northern Avenue Gardiner, Maine 04345
Re: Anthem-Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maine (BCBSME) proceeding
Dear Superintendent Iuppa:
Please find for filing in the above-referenced action, Applicants Response to Pending Motions to Intervene. Consistent with the procedures we understand will soon be set forth in a procedural order, we have enclosed two paper copies and two discs, one read-only, of both this letter and the enclosed Response. As reflected in the Certificate of Service attached to the Response, one paper copy of this letter and the enclosed Response have been sent to Judith Chamberlain, Esq., William Laubenstein, Esq., and those whom we understand represent the putative intervenors, by mail. If we should be following some other procedure, e.g., submitting more copies and/or in a different form, please tell us. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
cc: Robert S. Frank, Esq. Judith Chamberlain, Esq. William Laubenstein, Esq. Gregory A. Brodek, Esq. (Maine Health Alliance) Andrew B. MacLean, Esq. (Thomas D. Hayward, M.D., Maroulla S. Gleaton, M.D., and the Maine Medical Association) Joseph P. Ditre, Esq. (Consumers for Affordable Health Care Foundation/Coalition) Michele M. Gavin, Esq. (Central Maine Healthcare Corporation) Robert I. Goldman (Maine Council of Senior Citizens) Bonnie Post (Sacopee Valley Health Center, Regional Medical Center at Lubec, Eastport Health Care, Inc. and the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition) John Dieffenbacher-Krall (Maine People’s Alliance) Enclosure STATE OF MAINE
Introduction Applicants are aware of seven pending motions to intervene in the above-referenced action. As discussed below, Applicants have no objection to the any of these seven motions, as long as (1) they are granted permissively; and (2) the need for party coordination is addressed by the Superintendent at the appropriate time. I. BACKGROUND In the October 27, 1999 pre-hearing conference, the Superintendent identified two overarching concerns in the administration of these pending applications: (1) openness and maximization of public awareness and opportunity to participate; and (2) efficiency. Applicants firmly agree. The seven putative intervenors indicate that they represent a broad spectrum of interests. For example, putative intervenor Consumers for Affordable Health Care Foundation/Coalition ("CAHC") indicates that it includes many organizations, such as AARP/Maine, the Roman Catholic Diocese, and the Maine Civil Liberties Union. (See, e.g., CAHC Motion to Intervene, ¶10, stating that it represents 200,000 Maine Citizens.) There is substantial overlap between the apparent concerns and, indeed, the member organizations of the seven putative intervenors. For example, listed as organizations within the CAHC are the Maine People’s Alliance and the Maine Council of Senior Citizens – both of which have separately moved to intervene. II. DISCUSSION Given openness goals, Applicants welcome broad public participation. Given efficiency concerns, Applicants seek to (1) have that participation take place in a focused, coordinated manner; and (2) avoid any unnecessary, legalistic disputes. A. Permissive Intervention Looking at the last point, some putative intervenors have sought to intervene as of right instead of or in addition to permissively. As a legal matter, however, it does not appear that some or all these entities should be granted permissive, let alone "as of right" intervention.Given, however, that Applicants agree not to oppose the grant of permissive intervention to all seven putative intervenors, Applicants respectfully submit that the fairest and most efficient way to proceed is to grant such intervention. Only if and when it becomes material as to whether any intervention should also be as of right, will there be any need for the Superintendent to resolve this question. Hence, to avoid unnecessary waste of resources, Applicants request that the Superintendent grant permissive intervention at this time. B. Coordination Given the apparent overlap of concerns (and memberships) of the intervenors, and the complexity of this action, it seems clear that some coordination among parties will be critical to meeting efficiency goals. The relevant question is again timing: should such coordination issues be resolved now, or is a later time more appropriate? If the Superintendent (1) agrees with the sequencing of discovery as discussed in the October 27 pre-hearing conference; and (2) requires the putative intervenors to designate their issues before their discovery can begin, then the coordination issue can best be dealt with shortly after the intervenors’ designations have been filed. At that point, the Superintendent will be in the best position to understand the relationships among the parties’ interests and concerns, while discovery sequencing will avoid any unfair and unnecessary burden on the Applicants resulting from many simultaneous, potentially duplicative informational requests from many intervenors. Applicants, therefore, respectfully request that the Superintendent take the above-outlined approach: (1) include discovery sequencing in his Procedural Order; and (2) set a date for designation of the intervenors’ issues prior to the date they can commence discovery. Alternatively, if sequencing is not used, so that Applicants will potentially be faced with many requests from many intervenors very soon, and if the intervenors’ issues are not designated before Applicants face such multiple discovery requests, then Applicants submit that it is necessary to resolve this coordination issue promptly. Toward that end, if the alternative situation exists, Applicants suggest that the Superintendent order the intervenors by a set date to make their recommendations as to coordination, and to set forth with reasonable precision the issues they seek to pursue in this proceeding. Applicants can then respond accordingly, and the Superintendent can make an informed coordination decision. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, Applicants request that the Superintendent grant the seven pending motions to intervene permissively, and rule on party coordination prior to any allowance of discovery by the intervenors and after they have designated their issues. Alternatively, Applicants request an order setting a briefing schedule on the issues of coordination and whether any or all intervenors may intervene as of right, which order includes a deadline for putative intervenor designation of issues prior to the date Applicants must brief these issues. DATED: November 3, 1999
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 3, 1999, a copy of the Applicants’ Response to Pending Motions to Intervene was served by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, on each of the persons listed below. Robert S. Frank, Esq. Harvey & Frank Two City Center P.O. Box 126 Portland, Maine 04112 (Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maine) Judith Chamberlain, Esq. State of Maine Department of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 (Office of the Attorney General) William H. Laubenstein, Esq. State of Maine Department of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 (Office of the Attorney General) Gregory A. Brodek, Esq. Duane, Morris & Heckscher, LLP 15 Columbia Street, 4th Floor Bangor, Maine 04401-6355 (Maine Health Alliance) Andrew B. MacLean, Esq. Maine Medical Association Frank O. Stred Building P.O. Box 190 Manchester, Maine 04351 (Thomas D. Hayward, M.D., Maroulla S. Gleaton, M.D., and the Maine Medical Association)
Joseph P. Ditre, Esq. Consumer Health Law Program One Weston Court, Level One P.O. Box 2490 Augusta, Maine 04338-2490 (Consumers for Affordable Health Care Foundation/Coalition) Michele M. Garvin, Esq. Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 (Central Maine Healthcare Corporation) Robert I. Goldman Maine Council of Senior Citizens 27 Bowery Beach Road Cape Elizabeth, Maine 04107 (Maine Council of Senior Citizens) Bonnie Post Executive Director of the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition P.O. Box 390 Manchester, Maine 04351 (Sacopee Valley Health Center, Regional Medical Center at Lubec, Eastport Health Care, Inc., and the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition) John Dieffenbacher-Krall Executive Director Maine People’s Alliance 192 State Street Portland, Maine 04101 (Maine People’s Alliance) DATED: November 3, 1999 _____________________________ James B. Zimpritch, Esq. Catherine R. Connors, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD Portland, Maine 04101 (207) 791-1100 Attorneys for Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
Last Updated: December 8, 2011 |
| Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved. |