Skip All Navigation

Maine.gov > PFR Home > Insurance Regulation > Hearing Decision Index > Document 51 : INS 99-14 : Hearing Decision

 

 

 

November 12, 1999

 

 

Alessandro A. Iuppa

Superintendent of Insurance

c/o Lyndy Morgan

Docket No. INS-99-14

Maine Department of Professional & Financial Regulation

Bureau of Insurance

124 Northern Avenue

Gardiner, Maine 04345

 

Re: Anthem / Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maine

Filing coversheet

Dear Lyndy:

Enclosed for filing (two paper copies and two discs via hand delivery) please find the following:

 

SUBMITTED BY: Catherine R. Connors

DATE: November 12, 1999

DOCUMENT TITLE: Applicants’ Response To Maine Council Of Senior Citizens’ And Maine Health Alliance’s Objections To Permissive Intervention

DOCUMENT TYPE: Pleading

CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION: No

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Catherine R. Connors

 

cc: Robert S. Frank, Esq. (via regular mail & hand delivery)

Judith Chamberlain, Esq. (via regular mail & hand delivery)

William Laubenstein, Esq. (via regular mail & hand delivery)

Gregory A. Brodek, Esq. (Maine Health Alliance) (via regular mail)

Andrew B. MacLean, Esq. (Thomas D. Hayward, M.D., Maroulla S. Gleaton, M.D., and the Maine Medical Association) (via regular mail)

Joseph P. Ditre, Esq. (Consumers for Affordable Health Care Foundation/Coalition) (via regular mail)

Michele M. Gavin, Esq. (Central Maine Healthcare Corporation) (via regular mail)

Robert I. Goldman (Maine Council of Senior Citizens) (via regular mail)

Bonnie Post (Sacopee Valley Health Center, Regional Medical Center at Lubec, Eastport Health Care, Inc. and the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition) (via regular mail)

John Dieffenbacher-Krall (Maine People’s Alliance) (via regular mail)

 

STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL REGULATION
BUREAU OF INSURANCE

IN RE: APPLICATION OF ASSOCIATED HOSPITAL SERVICE

OF MAINE, d/b/a BLUE CROSS

AND BLUE SHIELD OF MAINE, TO CONVERT TO A STOCK INSURER AND VOLUNTARILY LIQUIDATE AND Dissolve

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)		  
IN RE: APPLICATION OF ANTHEM HEALTH PLAN OF MAINE, INC.,

TO ACQUIRE TO ACQUIRE THE ASSETS OF ASSOCIATED HOSPITAL SERVICE OF MAINE, d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MAINE, AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

Docket NO. INS 99-14 (CONSOLIDATED)

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)		 APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE TO MAINE COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS’ AND MAINE HEALTH ALLIANCE’S OBJECTIONS TO PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION

Introduction

On November 5 & 8, 1999, respectively, the Maine Health Alliance ("MHA") and Maine Council of Senior Citizens ("MCSC") filed objections to the Applicants’ recommendation that the MCSC and MHA, among others, should be granted permissive, rather than as of right, intervention in this proceeding. These objections reinforce why permissive intervention is the fairest and most efficient way to proceed.

Applicants repeat their agreement to permissive intervention for each putative intervenor, in an effort to avoid unnecessary, full-blown briefing on each of the intervention applications, with point-by-point analysis as to why none meet the strict standards for intervention as of right. Again, Applicants do not herein engage in that detailed analysis, but rather renew their position that permissive intervention is appropriate and request the opportunity for such briefing if the Superintendent is inclined to consider granting any putative intervenor as of right status.

It appears, moreover, that the MCSC and MHA objections may be based on misapprehension of the role of permissive intervention. Applicants briefly address that topic below.

I. Permissive Intervenors Would Be Parties.

The objections seem to be based on the misimpression that, unless intervenors are granted intervention as of right, they cannot be heard. (See, e.g., MCSC Objection at 2: "In our opinion, respectfully, it would be beneficial to the Superintendent and to the proceedings as a whole to have an experienced and respected senior organization at the table.") Granting permissive intervention would not remove the MCSC from the table. Rather, it means that the MCSC would be a full party, subject to whatever coordination efforts the Superintendent applies globally to the proceeding.

II. Permissive Intervention is Appropriate for Coalition and Group Interests.

Applicants suggest permissive intervention not only to avoid unnecessary briefing and dispute, but because the putative intervenors have identified broad, global, policy interests. For example, the MCSC seeks intervention (as reflected in its intervention application and Objection) in order to advance what it believes are the views and interests of all of the "older persons in this state." (MCSC Objection at 1; Application to Intervene, ¶¶1, 6 (alleging that the MCSC is "devoted to the well-being of seniors and all other citizens of our state" and "has an interest in the many persons and families in our state who are uninsured or underinsured and who may benefit from the community health services made available through the auspices or support of BCBSME and others, and who may be affected by the community practices of any successor to BCBSME.")

Notwithstanding that this purported blanket representation makes the MCSC difficult to distinguish from the general public (see March 2, 1999 UNUM Intervention Order at 4: "The ‘interest’ required by Section 9054(2) for permissive intervention . . . must be ‘distinguishable from that of the general public’"), citing Rule of Practice 9(B): differentiating between participation of persons granted intervenor status from the general public), the Applicants have no objection to the MCSC participating as permissive intervenors in this action. But such a generalized interest cannot meet the particularized demands of as of right status.

Similarly, while the MHA’s interest, articulated to be based on contractual negotiations with BCBSME, may be greater than or different from those of the general public, they appear, at least at this point, to be very broad and generalized: i.e., based on the potential existence of a contractual relationship with one of the Applicants. Basing an as of right status on such a general, speculative interest could create harmful precedent, and, as noted, is unnecessary, given the unopposed option of permissive participation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above and in their initial collective response, Applicants request that the Superintendent grant the seven pending motions to intervene permissively.

Alternatively, Applicants request an order (1) requiring the intervenors to designate issues, and (2) setting a briefing schedule on whether any or all intervenors may intervene as of right.

DATED: November 12, 1999

_______________________________

James B. Zimpritch, Esq.

Catherine R. Connors, Esq.

Attorney for Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.

PIERCE ATWOOD

One Monument Square

Portland, ME 04101

(207) 791-1100

 

Robert S. Frank, Esq.

Attorney for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine

HARVEY & FRANK

Two City Center, Fourth Floor

Portland, Maine 04101

(207) 775-1300

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 12, 1999, a copy of the Applicants’ Response To Maine Council Of Senior Citizens’ And Maine Health Alliance’s Objections To Permissive Intervention 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 12, 1999

______________________________

James B. Zimpritch, Esq.

Catherine R. Connors, Esq.

PIERCE ATWOOD
One Monument Square

Portland, Maine 04101

(207) 791-1100

Attorneys for Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.

Last Updated: December 8, 2011