Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar|
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Insurance Regulation > Hearing Decision Index > Document 440 : INS 99-14 : Hearing Decision
February 22, 2000
Robert Frank, Esq.
Harvey & Frank
2 City Center
P.O. Box 126
Portland, Maine 04101
This follows our telephone discussion of February 16, your letter of February 17, our email exchange of February 18, and my hand delivering to you and Jeff White the Confidentiality Agreement on February 18.
It is my understanding from your email of February 18 that you are reviewing these issues further with BCBSME and will be getting back to me. I thought it would be useful to review the bidding in this letter, as well as address the issues further.
When we spoke on February 16, I shared with you and Jeff White this firms involvements with entities that might be considered "competitors" of BCBSME. These matters included the following:
Until NYLCares purchase/merger with AETNA/U.S. Healthcare in January of 1999, this firm represented NYLCare on a variety of matters, principally focusing on legislative and regulatory matters. Since that time, we have responded to isolated regulatory inquiries from AETNA/U.S. Healthcare.
We provided a variety of legislative and regulatory representation to Tufts. This ceased as of September 30, 1999 when Tufts announced it was withdrawing from the Maine market.
We handle isolated regulatory inquiries from time to time from HPHC. We have done nothing for HPHC that relates in any way to BCBSME or the pending BOI proceedings.
We provided active representation to BCBSMA in its submission of a bid to BCBSME during the spring and summer of 1999. Following the selection of Anthem by BCBSME, BCBSMA has asked us to monitor Maine-related developments.
I also shared with you in a February 18 email that Sandra Jesse Carter, General Counsel for BCBSMA had spoken on more than one occasion with Ed Kane of BCBSME. In a conversation within the last week or two, she had reassured Ed that BCBSMA would not involve itself in any way in the pending Maine BOI proceedings, and that if that changed, she would be the first to inform Mr. Kane and discuss it fully prior to proceeding. She expressed a willingness and desire to talk further with Ed and others of BCBSME at any point should there be further concerns.
In your letter of February 17, you reported that you had spoken with BCBSME and that:
In my email to you of February 18, I stated that I was signing the Confidentiality Agreement in the form prepared by the Superintendent and that under that Agreement I would be bound as a "authorized person" to maintain confidentiality from all at MHA who are not themselves authorized persons, as well as maintain confidentiality with respect to any and all past, present and future clients. Further, I noted that under the terms of the Protective Order, your or Anthems opportunity to object is extremely circumscribed and that the Order stresses you cannot object to "authorized persons who are counsel of record to intervenors in this proceeding". See page 2 of October 18, 1999 Protective Order.
I noted in my February 18 email that the structure of the Order, and its policy that no objection could be made with respect to counsel of record, likely arose from a variety of policy and practical considerations. Under the terms of the Confidentiality Agreements, attorneys are bound to maintain confidentiality. Further, any other view of the circumstances would likely preclude any Maine law firm that had more than one client in the healthcare or insurance arena from appearing in a proceeding of this nature.
On Friday afternoon, we hand delivered to you and Attorney White an executed Confidentiality Agreement. Under the terms of the Protective Order, you have three business days following receipt to object.
I am asking Sandra Jesse Carter to contact Ed Kane to discuss this matter further and go over any business concerns BCBSME may have with respect to BCBSMA.
Beyond the terms of the Protective Order, which are quite explicit, you have my personal assurance that I will not share any confidential information reviewed in the context of this administrative proceeding with any persons who are not themselves "authorized persons", and that I will otherwise abide by the terms of the Protective Order.
In conclusion, I ask you and your client to consider this matter further and to refrain from objecting in recognition of the terms and conditions of the Confidentiality Agreement, and the terms of the original Protective Order. I stand ready to discuss this further with you or appropriate representatives of BCBSME. As you can appreciate, the MHA and I are most anxious to resolve this as soon as practicable.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
John P. Doyle, Jr.
cc: Sandra Parker, Esq.
Sandra Jesse Carter, Esq.
Martin Robles, Esq.
Jeffrey White, Esq.
Judith Chamberlain, Esq.
Alessandro Iuppa, Superintendent
JPD\G:\MHA\2000\bcbsma\Frank0222.doc (February 22, 2000 11:13 AM)
Last Updated: August 22, 2012
|Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved.|