Document 70 : Docket No. 99-14 : Hearing Decision : Bureau of Insurance

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	)	APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE TO
HEALTH PLAN OF MAINE, INC.,	)	INTERVENORS’ PROPOSALS FOR
TO ACQUIRE TO ACQUIRE THE	)	COORDINATION
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)	)

Introduction

Applicants do not object to the Intervenors’ proposal to divide, for discovery purposes, into two coordinating groups. The methodology proposed by the Maine Medical Association ("MMA") for coordination makes sense and should be adopted. Resolution of any other coordination issues would be premature at this time.

Discussion

When granting the Intervenors’ respective applications to intervene, the Superintendent ordered all Intervenors, with the exception of the Attorney General, "to confer and make a written submission on or before 3:00 p.m., November 19, 1999, suggesting how the intervenors may be grouped for purposes of coordinating discovery and suggesting a process for the coordination of discovery." Intervenor Central Maine Healthcare Corporation filed its response on November 17^th. On November 19^th, the Maine Medical Association filed a collective proposal on behalf of all of the "Public Intervenors," which referenced CMHC’s submission.

The Public Intervenors propose to divide into two groups for discovery purposes, a "provider group" and a "consumer group." Applicants agree that this division makes sense and should advance the Superintendent’s desire for an efficient, non-duplicative discovery process.

Although the Public Intervenors have designated MMA and CAHC to coordinate the discovery efforts of the provider group and consumer group, respectively, there may to be some potential disparity between how those two groups will coordinate discovery.

The consumer group avers only that the CAHC will "ensure that the consumer group coordinates its discovery requests to eliminate duplication." (Id., ¶5.)

By contrast, the MMA states specifically that it will (1) receive all written discovery requests from the members of its group, (2) assemble them into a single document; (3) eliminate any duplicates; and (4) be responsible for filing the consolidated request(s) with the Superintendent. (Public Intervenors’ Proposal, ¶6.)

Applicants believe that the MMA’s procedures guarantee appropriate coordination and should result in the desired efficiency with little if any duplication. By contrast, it is unclear what the CAHC will actually do to eliminate duplication. Applicants recommend that the Superintendent provide for consistent discovery procedures for both groups, and adopt the procedures set forth by the MMA.

In taking this position, Applicants assume that, along with the procedures proposed by the MMA, the coordinators will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Bureau’s requirements that informational requests be relevant to the applicable statutory inquiries and not unduly burdensome or repetitious. In other words, the coordinator’s role is more than that of simple scrivener, charged only with removing requests that are completely identical. Rather, the two coordinators should actively work to focus the inquiries and to consolidate questions that, although perhaps worded differently, seek essentially the same information. While any party served with a repetitious, irrelevant, or unduly burdensome discovery request will still have the ability under the Rules to object, the efficiencies gained by coordination in the first place would be lost if unnecessary disputes erupt simply because the coordinator’s role is insufficiently defined.

When discussing the "process" for discovery coordination, the Public Intervenors proposed that the Superintendent permit them to serve three discovery requests. (Id., ¶7.) Applicants believe that pre-approval for any specific number of information requests would be unwise. Having not yet been served with even the first discovery request from either group, it is difficult for Applicants, and, Applicants believe for the Superintendent, to determine the appropriate number of requests to be allowed. Applicants would hope that the Intervenors set a goal of serving one set of requests, and believe that pre-ordaining multiple requests would only undermine the objective of each party focusing on the discovery it truly needs.

Applicants respond similarly to the Public Intervenors’ comment that their proposal is limited to coordination of discovery, and does not effect a waiver of any right to present independent evidence or argument at the hearing. (Id., ¶9.) It would be premature for the Superintendent to address this issue at this point. Although the Superintendent may well determine that coordination of some or all of the Intervenors’ presentations of evidence and argument at the hearing is appropriate, with discovery still in its infancy, it is unnecessary for the Superintendent to rule on this issue now. Applicants agree that no Intervenor has waived any right to argue this point later, as the hearing dates approach.

DATED: November 24, 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 24, 1999, a copy of the Applicants’ Response to Public Intervenors’ Proposal for Coordination 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

(Counsel to the Superintendent)

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, 4^th 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 24, 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.