Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar|
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Insurance Regulation > Hearing Decision Index > Document 82 : INS 99-14 : Hearing Decision
STATE OF MAINE
The Superintendent of Insurance has granted intervention to the following in the above-captioned matter: the State of Maine Attorney General, the Maine Health Alliance, the Maine Medical Association, Consumers for Affordable Health Care Foundation, Central Maine Healthcare Corporation, the Maine Council of Senior Citizens, the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition, and the Maine Peoples Alliance. In granting intervention, the Superintendent required all Intervenors, with the exception of the Attorney General, to file a proposal for the grouping of Intervenors and for the coordination of discovery.
In response to the order of the Superintendent, Central Maine Healthcare Corporation (CMHC) filed a response stating that its interests in this proceeding were limited at this time and that it did not expect to engage in discovery. CMHC reserved its right to engage in discovery at a later time if circumstances change but would do so in a fashion that avoids duplication. Given that the interests of CMHC relate to its status as a 50% owner of Central Maine Partners Health Plan and that CMHC does not expect those interests to generate the need for discovery, CMHC is exempt from coordination requirements at this time. The Superintendent reserves the right to reassess this requirement should the level of participation of CMHC change at any point in time.
The purpose of requiring the Intervenors to divide into groups and develop a process for coordination of discovery is to assure an effective and efficient proceeding. The Intervenors have suggested they divide into two groups for discovery purposes, a "provider" group and a "consumer" group. This division, with the Maine Medical Association, the Maine Health Alliance and the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition in one group and Consumers for Affordable Healthcare, the Maine Council of Senior Citizens, and the Maine Peoples Alliance in another is a reasonable approach and is hereby adopted for the purposes of discovery.
The procedures proposed by the consumer group is to have Consumers for Affordable Healthcare coordinate its discovery requests to avoid duplication. The provider group, on the other hand, specifically states that the Maine Medical Association will receive all written discovery requests from the other members of its group, remove any duplicates, prepare a single discovery document which will then be filed with the Superintendent and served. The Superintendent does not believe adhering to the process proposed by the provider group would prejudice the consumer group. Rather, the use of such a process will facilitate discovery and accomplish the outcome desired. Accordingly, both the consumer group and the provider group will follow the discovery process outlined by the Maine Medical Association as set forth above with Consumers for Affordable Healthcare acting as the repository and filing party.
Finally, the intervenor groups propose to serve no more than three discovery requests with the first being served on or before January 1, 2000. Despite the Applicants characterization of this proposal as "pre-approval" for a specific number of discovery requests, what the groups actually propose is to impose a limitation on the number of requests served. One would hope, particularly given the requests issued by the Superintendent, that no more than one discovery request for each group will be required, however, the Superintendent is not inclined to impose such a limitation. Rather, the suggested limitation of no more than three discovery requests for each group is accepted.
The Applicants oppose the attempt of the Intervenors to reserve the right to present separate evidence and argument at the hearing. Applicants agree that the Intervenors have not waived any right to argue later as to whether some coordination of evidence and argument should be required but do not believe the Superintendent need rule on this issue at this point. The Superintendent agrees that it would be premature to decide the extent to which coordination may be required at the hearing and reserves the right to accept argument on that issue at a later date. Thus, the Superintendent is making no ruling as to the level of coordination that will be required at the hearing.
PER ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
DATED: ________________________ ______________________________
ALESSANDRO A. IUPPA
Superintendent of Insurance
Last Updated: August 22, 2012
|Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved.|