FILED Petition For Temporary Restraining Order, (01658178)
FILED Petition For Temporary Restraining Order, (01658178)
FILED Petition For Temporary Restraining Order, (01658178)
JACKSON DIVISION
P 1L
OCT 182(113
J. T. NOBtW. C?.6f<
ay
QEPUTV
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi, A Mutual Insurance
Company ("Blue Cross") files this petition seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the unconstitutional executive action threatened and/or taken by Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant.
Blue Cross seeks a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the unprecedented and unconstitutional executive action at issue which threatens
to force Blue Cross, a private party, to enter into contracts with other private parties. Further, Blue Cross seeks declaratory and permanent injunctive relief once its claims are fully adjudicated. In support of its petition, Blue Cross states the following:
INTRODUCTION
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant has mandated that Blue Cross, a private party, enter into contracts with ten HMA-owned hospitals, other private parties. The Governor purportedly
has taken this unprecedented action to protect Blue Cross subscribers' access to health care. This executive action is flawed and improper on numerous levels.
01657856
Contrary to the Governor's and HMA's assertions, the dispute between Blue Cross and
HMA is a contractual disagreement between private parties and does not prevent any
Mississippian from having access to health care. Blue Cross cannot prevent any Blue Cross
subscriber from walking into any HMA hospital, or any other hospital in the State, to receive
health care. Further, Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney has testified that the
exclusion of the ten HMA-owned hospitals from Blue Cross' provider Network will not deny
Blue Cross subscribers access to health care. Rather, the dispute between Blue Cross and HMA
centers on the exorbitant prices that HMA charges Mississippians for health care provided at
HMA's hospitals. HMA hospitals charge their patients significantly more than other local-area
network hospitals chai'ge their patientsin some cases more than double the charges.
Blue Cross offered to reimburse HMA hospitals in the same manner that it reimburses
virtually every other hospital in Mississippi for medical services provided to Mississippians. HMA rejected Blue Cross' offer and has sued Blue Cross in an action presently pending in
Rankin County Circuit Court seeking to obtain reimbursement for HMA hospitals at a rate
several multiples higher than the rate that Blue Cross reimburses virtually every other hospital in Mississippi. HMA's motive is clear^to maximize profits in order to facilitate the pending sale of its hospitals in Mississippi to Community Health Systems, a for-profit hospital organization
based in Franklin, Tennessee. When Blue Cross exercised its right to terminate its contracts with
the HMA hospitals, and after rejecting Blue Cross' offer to reinstate four HMA hospitals, HMA,
its attorney, and its lobbyists convinced the Governor to attempt to require Blue Cross to return all ten of the HMA hospitals to Network status.
The Governor's attempt to act under the color of State authority to dictate the business
practices of private parties is an unprecedented act that disregards multiple fundamental rights
01657856
protected by both the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution. The Governor
has no constitutional or statutory authority to either compel private parties to enter into a
contract, or to mandate the terms of such a contract, including price. Thus, Blue Cross
respectfully requests that the Court enjoin the Governor from taking any action to force Blue Cross to enter into contracts with ten HMA-owned hospitals and to declare any such action
unconstitutional. PARTIES
1.
Mississippi, having its principal place of business at 3545 Lakeland Drive, Flowood, Mississippi. 2. Defendant Governor Phil Bryant (the "Governor"), in his official capacity only, is
the Governor of the State of Mississippi and may be served with process at the Sillers Office
Building, 550 High Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
This Court has jurisdiction over Blue Cross' federal claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
8912 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 2201 and 2202. The Court also has jurisdiction over Blue Cross'
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), as the state law claims are part of the same case
and controversy as the federal claims. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(a).
FACTS
4.
Jackson HMA, LLC ("CMMC"), Biloxi HMA, LLC ("Biloxi"), Brandon HMA,
LLC ("Crossgates"), Amory HMA, LLC ("Gilmore"), Madison HMA, LLC ("Madison"),
Natchez Community Hospital, LLC ("Natchez"), Clarksdale HMA, LLC ("Northwest"), River Oaks Hospital, LLC ("River Oaks"), Alliance Health Partners, LLC ("Tri-Lakes"), and ROH,
01657856
LLC ("Woman's") (collectively, "HMA") are all engaged in the business of operating hospitals
Blue Cross Network provider. A Network provider is a health care provider who has entered
into a contract with Blue Cross. The Network provider is paid a higher percentage of the
allowed medical reimbursement than a provider who does not have a contract with Blue Cross,
based on a Blue Cross members' contract. In consideration, the Network provider agrees to
follow certain company polices, files the member's claim and does not balance bill the member
for the amount in excess of allowed charges. In addition, the insured has a lower coinsurance payment if he/she obtains treatment from a Network provider. For example, in most instances,
the insured only has a 20% coinsurance payment obligation for the allowed charges at a Network
provider. 6. The Agreements include tliree Attachments:
a. Attachment A is the Policies and Procedures Manual, which includes
Program"); and
Rules as every other Blue Cross Network hospital in its catesorv. The Blue Cross Participating
01657856
Hospital Agreements fall into three categories: Fair Market Price, Per Diem and Percentage of
Charge based on the nature of the hospital. Eight of the HMA hospitals operate under the Fair
Market Price Agreement, and two operate under the Per Diem Agreement. The Payment Programs are negotiated by the individual Network hospital.
8.
Effective for calendar year 2011, each of the HMA hospitals signed the negotiated
Payment Programs. In addition, the Payment Rules went into effect. 9. In the fall of 2011, Blue Cross submitted its Payment Program proposals as well
HMA rejected Blue Cross' Payment Program
proposals. Consequently, in 2012 HMA was paid under the Payment Program each hospital had
in place for 2011, and under the Payment Rules established for every Blue Cross Network hospital for 2012. HMA accepted payments under this arrangement for the entire vear of 2012.
10. In the fall of 2012, the same annual Network hospital process began again for
Payment Program proposals and Payment Rules effective for 2013. HMA again refused Blue
Cross's Payment Program offer. However, in January of 2013, Madison accepted Blue Cross'
Payment Program proposal for 2013 and, therefore, was paid under its individualized 2013
Payment Program. Each of the nine remaining HMA hospitals was paid under its individualized
2011 Payment Program. All of the HMA hospitals were paid under the Payment Rules effective
for all Blue Cross Network hospitals in the same category in Mississippi for 2013. HMA
accepted these payments for more than six months.
11.
On June 18, 2013, the HMA hospitals sued Blue Cross alleging, in part, breach of
contract for insufficient payments. See Jackson HMA, LLC dba Central Mississippi Medical
Center et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, et al, originally in Hinds County and transferred to
Rankin County Circuit Court, No. 2013-226. In that action, the HMA hospitals seek to be paid
01657856
using Payment Rules different from every other Blue Cross Network hospitalthey want to be
paid more.
12.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreements, each of the parties had the right to
terminate the Agreement, with or without cause. On June 25, 2013, Blue Cross exercised that
massive public relations campaign to provide to the public misinformation concerning Blue
Cross' termination of the Agreements and HMA's pending state court lawsuit. HMA also sought
to influence state-wide and local elected officials to assist it in its otherwise private dispute with
Blue Cross.
14.
On September 16, 2013, HMA and Blue Cross appeared at a joint hearing before
At the
hearing, Butler Snow attorney and HMA officer, Paul Hurst, made his unfounded allegations
about the loss of access to care. Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney testified that the
Mississippi statutes do not allow for his office to intervene unless there is a problem with access
to care. He testified that his office had reviewed the networks, that there was not a violation and
Specifically, Commissioner
I have no authority and I don't think any insurance commissioner in the United States has authority to intervene in network disputes unless there is a problem with access to healthcare. And in Mississippi, that's - that actual code is being passed out now. And we have looked at the networks. We finished the surveys Friday of this week and we have provided the Senate and House hearing members a copy of this access report. But I will tell you this: From what we see, there's no violation of the law that we have today. This is strictly an issue that I have said appears to
01657856
be legal, the contractual dispute, but unfortunately you have ten hospitals that are on the HMA and those ten hospitals are affected very greatly.
See Exhibit 1, Transcript of Chaney's Testimony at Legislative Hearing at pp. 66-67.
15.
The HMA hospitals became non-Network effective September 1, 2013. The non-
Network status does not affect the Mississippi State and Public School Employees Health Plan
and does not affect Network benefit payments under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan
until November 4, 2013.
16.
On October 14, 2013, Blue Cross offered to reinstate four HMA hospitals-
Agreements and payment terms under which they had accepted payments for eighteen months before they filed suit. The offer was not contingent on those hospitals foregoing their rights to
seek reimbursement of the alleged underpayments which are the subject of the pending state
court lawsuit. HMA rejected the offers. 17. On October 17, 2013, the Governor sent Blue Cross a letter stating that unless
Blue Cross advises him by 5:00 p.m. on October 18, 2013 that it "will return the ten affected hospitals to network status and to the status quo as it existed prior to their termination[,]" he
intends "to issue an executive order to begin addressing this threat to BCBS enrollees and access
to healthcare generally." See Exhibit 2, October 17, 2013 Letter from Governor Bryant to Carol
Pigott.
18.
The Governor states that given Blue Cross' market position, he is concerned "that
the hospitals' exclusion from the BCBS network will do serious harm to BCBS enrollees and
patients of these hospitals and reduce access to care in the State generally." Id. He says he has
become convinced "that the exclusion of the hospitals from the BCBS network may not be
01657856 7
within the limits of the law." Id. (emphasis added). The Governor claims he is "concerned that
this situation may raise serious issues under Mississippi's antitrust laws." Id. (emphasis added).
Based on these issues, he has asked the Mississippi Department of Insurance whether it intends
to "act immediately to return the ten affected hospitals to the BCBS network." IdJ If not, he
"[i]ntends to issue an executive order to that end." Id. According to the Governor, his duty to
see that the laws are faithfully enforced "requires [him] to act now to enforce the law." Id. He
claims that "[a]ny further delay risks irreparable harm and a loss of the access to care." Id.
19. According to the Governor, "[t]he threat to patients that [he] feels compelled to
address can be avoided only if all ten of the affected hospitals are returned to the BCBS network
immediately." Id. He states that he is not taking sides in the Blue Cross/HMA litigation and that he has no opinion about the lawsuit. However, "[a]s far as [he] is concerned, until that dispute is
settled by the parties or resolved bv a court. BCBS mav simply return the hospitals to the status
quo as it existed before their contracts were terminated, i.e., BCBS may continue to interpret and
apply the contracts as BCBS understands them." He claims his only concern is patient access to
care.
20.
The Governor's sudden interest in access to health care is interesting given that he
and members of his staff have stated that this dispute is an "economic development issue" for
Rankin County.
' By letter dated October 17, 2013, the Governor asked Insurance Commissioner Chaney to rethink his
position that the Department of Insurance does not have authority to act to immediately require Blue Cross to enter into a contract with HMA to return HMA's ten hospitals into Blue Cross' Network. See
Exhibit 3. The Insurance Commissioner apparently has declined the Governor's invitation to change his position that the Department of Insurance has absolutely no authority to interfere in a contractual dispute between private parties.
01657856 8
21.
In addition, the Governor has a conflict of interest in taking this action because a
member of his immediate family is a lawyer at Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC ("Butler Snow"), the same firm which represents HMA against Blue Cross and for whom
Paul Hurst, who serves as Senior Vice-President of Governmental Relations for HMA, is a
lawyer. Moreover, upon information and belief, the Governor has received nearly half a million
dollars, collectively, in political contributions from HMA, Butler Snow, Capital Resources (a
lobbying firm that represents HMA), and Beth Clay (a lobbyist who represents HMA) and her
clients.
22.
The Governor's executive action violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 14 of the Mississippi Constitution; the
Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 14 of the Mississippi Constitution; and the Contracts Clause of Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S.
Constitution and Article 3, Section 16 of the Mississippi Constitution. "[N]o Governor, or for that matter, any governmental official, can exercise power beyond their constitutional authority."
Barbour v. State ex rel Hood, 91A So. 2d 238, 239 (Miss. 2008) (citing Fordice v. Bryan, 651
So. 2d 998, 1003 (Miss. 1995) (citation omitted)).
23.
Blue Cross' refusal to enter into a contract in the face of an illegitimate demand
such as that identified in the Governor's letter is protected. As stated in the Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs in this matter have the Constitutional right to be free from entering a private contract or an involuntary association. See Bryant, et al. v. Holder, et al. Civil Action No. 2:10cv76KS-MTP, S.D. Miss, at [Dkt. No. 4] (wherein the then-Lieutenant Governor was a plaintiff in the action filed against the Attorney
General of the United States). Governor Bryant also has publically stated: "I am of the opinion
that the more we get the government out of health care, the better off we would be." See
http://blog.gulflive.eom/mississippi-press-news/2013/08/gov_phil_bryant_says_mississip.html.
24. Contrary to the Governor's claim that he is simply requiring Blue Cross to
"return the hospitals to the status quo," what he is calling for is a mandatory injunction. A mandatory injunction compels the performance of an affirmative act and, therefore, does n^ maintain the status quo. The Governor states that "until that dispute is settled by the parties or
resolved by a court, BCBS may simply return the hospitals to the status quo as it existed before
their contracts were terminated, i.e., BCBS may continue to interpret and apply the contracts as
BCBS understands them." See Exhibit 2. In other words, according to the Governor, even
though Blue Cross might be one hundred percent successful in its litigation with HMA, it must
contract with HMA in the meantime. Such an order, in effect, gives HMA a mandatory
injunction against Blue Cross without requiring HMA to meet the high burden of demonstrating
to the Rankin County Circuit Court that it is entitled to such relief
25.
every Blue Cross member. Blue Cross members may go to any hospital they desire. More
importantly, every Blue Cross policy covers emergency care and pays Network level benefits for
emergency care even at non-Network hospitals. 29 CFR 2590.715-2719A(b).
26.
As noted above, four HMA hospitals were offered to be reinstated into the
Network on October 14, 2013. The offers were rejected out of hand, demonstrating that the
01657856 10
HMAs' concern was not about access, but about HMA profits and a pending sale to another multi-billion dollar company. The remaining six HMA hospitals (CMMC, Crossgates, Madison, River Oaks, Woman's, Natchez and Biloxi) are all in cities with other acute inpatient hospitals in
the Blue Cross Network.
27.
The Governor's own State Health Plan states no shortage of access exists. See
Exhibit 4, Mississippi State Health Plan 2014, at Chapter 5 pgs. 1-2 ("A statewide glut of
licensed acute care beds complicates planning for community hospital services. There are far
more hospital beds than needed. ... The Department urges each hospital to voluntarily reduce the licensed bed capacity ....").
28. By alleging concerns about access to healthcare, HMA is simply attempting to
leverage its political power to gamer a contractual benefit greater than every other Mississippi
Blue Cross Network hospital. Blue Cross has an obligation to maintain healthcare costs for its
members, which means paying fair prices, not prices demanded by HMA.
29.
Based upon the cost reports submitted by HMA to the Mississippi Division of
Medicaid and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the Mississippi HMA
hospitals had total charges of $3,603,418,420 in 2011 and $4,144,299,743 in 2012. This same
information indicates that the ten HMA-owned hospitals apparently had net income of over $90,000,000, even after paying HMA home office overhead of over $34,500,000. One of the
issues Blue Cross has attempted to address with the HMA hospitals through the contracting
process is their excessively high charges. HMA area hospitals charge their patients sienificantlv
more than Blue Cross' other Network hospitalsin some cases, several multiples higher. The
more HMA hospitals charge, the more they get paid. Blue Cross and other payors must be able
to establish payment structures to curb this "high charge" abuse.
01657856
11
30.
The overcharging by the HMA hospitals is reflected in data from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). CMS maintains a Medicare Provider Analysis and
Review ("MEDPAR") file which contains data from claims for services provided to beneficiaries
admitted to Medicare certified inpatient hospitals and skilled nursing facilities. CMS also
maintains data related to outpatient charges for Medicare patients. The following are examples
from 2012:
Overall Charge per Case: River Oaks $70,723 and CMMC $68,565 vs. St. Dominic
Major Joint Replacement/Reattacliment of Lower Extremity: Rankin/Crossgates $111,050 and CMMC $108,759 vs. MS Baptist $38,864 and UMC $52,085
Percutaneous Cardiovascular Procedure: CMMC $113,331 vs. St. Dominic $38,339 and UMC $56,425
Heart Failure & Shock: Rankin/Crossgates $58,642 and River Oaks $57,815 vs. St.
Dominic $18,865 and UMC $21,409 Emergency Room: River Oaks $2,410.78 and CMMC $2,094.25 vs. St. Dominic
$537.07 and UMC $828.82
MRI/MRA Brain/Head/Neck: River Oaks $6,748.07 and CMMC $6,509.89 vs. UMC $3,975.48 and St. Dominic $3,567.92 Respiratory System with short term ventilator: Biloxi Regional $115,144 vs. Wayne General $15,047
Major Bowel with comorbid complications: Crossgates $349,683 vs. Forrest General
$62,587
See also Exhibit 5, Emily Le Coz, The big shell game. The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS) Oct. 6,
2013, at Al.
31.
The HMA hospitals have argued that total charges do not matter. Total charges
do matter, and enable HMA to manipulate Blue Cross' and governmental payment systems.
32.
For the reasons discussed herein. Blue Cross is entitled to a temporary restraining
order and injunctive and declaratory relief preventing the enforcement of the Governor's
unlawful executive action.
01657856
12
COUNT I
33.
Blue Cross incorporates by reference into this Count all allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1 through 32 set forth above. 34. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), Blue Cross respectfully
requests entry of a temporary restraining order, not to exceed fourteen (14) days, against
Defendant.
35.
Blue Cross respectfully submits that the Court should grant its request for a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction for the following reasons: a. Blue Cross is substantially likely to prevail on the merits of its claim.
Governor is not enjoined from taking this unlawful action, Blue Cross' constitutional rights under (i) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 14 of the Mississippi
action pending a determination of the constitutionality of the action. Specifically, if Blue Cross is required to pay the HMA hospitals as if they are Network providers and this Court or the court in the HMA/Blue Cross action
01657856 13
subsequently determines such treatment was not required, Blue Cross would
c. The threatened harm to Blue Cross' business operations substantially outweighs any theoretical harm the Defendant might suffer. Granting an
d. The entry of this request is consistent with public policy and in the interest of the public. The injunction will further the public interest by ensuring that private parties and persons are not forced to contract in violation of their
constitutional rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the
Mississippi Constitution.
36.
37.
Further, upon notice and hearing, to be conducted within fourteen (14) days. Blue
Cross, for the purpose of preventing immediate and irreparable harm, loss and damages, would request that the temporary restraining order be converted to a preliminary injunction.
38.
Blue Cross respectfully submits that it has met its burden under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65, and submits that the Court should immediately enter a temporary restraining
order precluding Defendant from enforcing his executive action.
COUNT 11
39.
Blue Cross incorporates by reference into this Count all allegations contained in
40.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, Blue Cross brings this action for a determination:
a. That Defendant has acted in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 14 of the Mississippi
Constitution;
b. That Defendant has acted in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Mississippi Constitution. An immediate, actual controversy exists as a result of the Governor's action.
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
41.
Blue Cross incorporates by reference into this Count all allegations contained in
42.
The executive action amounts to an arbitrary, irrational abuse of power that has
the effect of depriving Blue Cross of its constitutionally protected fundamental right to contract.
No compelling state interest is advanced by the action, and the action is not the least restrictive
method available to effectuate any compelling state interest.
43.
The executive action also deprives Blue Cross of its liberty and property rights
kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits and
authorizes, and even encourages, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
01657856
15
45.
Accordingly, the executive action violates the Due Process Clause of the
46.
Blue Cross incorporates by reference into this Count all allegations contained in
47.
Blue Cross has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly
48.
towards Blue Cross by the Defendant. 49. The classification created by the executive action impinges upon the exercise of
Blue Cross's fundamental right to contract, and, therefore, is subject to strict scrutiny. It cannot
50.
Accordingly, the executive action violates the Equal Protections Clause of the
51.
Blue Cross incorporates by reference into this Count all allegations contained in
52.
The Governor's executive action, ordering that the ten HMA-owned hospitals be
returned to the Blue Cross Network, substantially impairs the terms of the contracts between Blue Cross and HMA by, in effect, deleting the bargained for right to terminate the contract with
or without cause. HMA has not even sought this relief in their pending state court lawsuit.
53.
There is no significant and legitimate public purpose at issue here. Moreover, the
Defendant's adjustment of the rights and responsibilities of parties is not based upon reasonable
01657856 16
conditions and is not of a character appropriate to the public purpose cited by the executive
action.
54.
Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3, Section 16 of the Mississippi Constitution.
COMMON LAW OF CONTRACT
55.
Blue Cross incorporates by reference into this Count all allegations contained in
56.
Under Mississippi law, a contract entered into under duress that is not the product
57.
Accordingly, for this additional reason, the executive action mandating that Blue
Cross enter into a contract against its will and under duress violates Mississippi law and public
policy and should be declared unenforceable.
REOUEST FOR RELIEF
a.
b.
Upon a hearing, pursuant to Rule 65, to be conducted within fourteen (14) days of
the issuance of the temporary restraining order, that the Court make such temporary restraining
order permanent and grant temporary injunctive relief or, in the alternative, permanent injunctive
relief as to the protect Blue Cross from the Defendant's unconstitutional executive action; c. That, after the claims are fully adjudicated, this Honorable Court declare the
01657856
17
d.
That Blue Cross be granted leave to amend this Petition as evidence and justice
e.
proper.
That this Honorable Court grant such other and further relief as it deems just and
Respectfully submitted,
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MISSISSIPPI,
A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Attorneys
OF COUNSEL:
R. David Kaufman, Esq. (MSB No. 3526) Cheri D. Green, Esq. (MSB No. 4988) Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC
Post Office Drawer 119
01657856
18
EXHIBIT 1
6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19
PRESIDING CmiRNEN:
20
21 22
REPORTOD BY:
23 24 25
CavpiJTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION BY
2 3
4
5
6
7
Contents
SPEAKERS:
10
20
11 12
13
14
31 35
39
45
15
49
16
17
52
57
18
19
65
20
21 22 23 24 25
Certificate Page
75
GCMUTER-AIDED TRANBCRIPnON BY
we can't wait until a baby a irena leaves Clarksdale, Mississippi on her way to
6 7
in hallways.
did.
8 9
10 U 12 13
14
hospital.
We can't wait fbr a man to get we can't let them close these
Thank you
colonoscopy.
hospitals.
15 16
17
CHAIRMAN CHISM:
Thank you.
18 19
CHAIRMAN CHISM:
(AUDIENCE CLAPS.)
CHAIRMAN CHISM:
Thank you.
Okay.
20
21 22
Ootrmissioner of
23
24
|VR. CHANEY:
CHAIRMAN CHISM:
25
yonder.
Do you
QCMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION BY
gg
2
3 4
NR. CHANEY:
CHAiRNWl CHISM:
|VR. CHANEY:
6 7 8 9
10
do is pass you around some information that may help you. I want everybody to knew that I truly care about what's happening in our comninity, espedally in Rankin County,
Madison and Hinds. I have been asked by all
U 12
the parties to either get involved or stay out of it, so depends on which side you're
13 14
15
on.
16
17 18
19
20
a problem with access to healthcare. And in Mississippi, that's that actual code is
being passed out new.
And we have looked at the networks. We
21
22
23
24
25
2 3
4
said appears to be legal, the contractual dispute, but unfbrtunately you have ten
hospitals that are on the and those ten
Some of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 16
I got no
17
18 19
20
issue up until V\fednesday of this past week, but we had trouble providing neti^orks just
within the metro area fbr one of the
21
22
23
netwDrk.
24
25
gg
2
3
5
6
7
8
People live in
9
10
11
regjlator.
12
13
Greenville,
14 15
16
17
18 19
20
with the hospitals that we looked at like Holmes Gounty that would probably close,
Grenada.
21
22
23
I hope you
24
25
69
2 3
That's the
4
5
But it
7 8
9
The only
10
11
12
13 do.
14
15
do.
I will just tell you that under the I can ask with the
16
17
authority to intervene.
18
13
I have offered, as
20
21 22
23
24 25
2
3
4 5 6
7
8
dispute, and that presents another host of problems for us. But we wrill do whatever we can to provide healthcare in these three
counties and the ten hospitals that are
outlined.
9 10
NOW, from what I understand, I don't think if Ootmunity buys l-m that any
11 12
13
That's my
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
So, I don't
21 22 23
24
we've got just so you'll know, Comnittee, we got major problems in Hattiesburg that are coming our way. So,
it's an issue that I have to deal wnth and I
25
2 3 4 5
6
the federally-facilitated marketplace, we stay quite busy at our department. I will tell you this, though: This is on the top of our to-do list to try to get
this issue resolved, but we cannot intervene
7
8 9
10
11 12
13
14
15
work it out.
16
17
IS 19 20
21
I will tell you what's coming down the pipe. The federal government is going to fine
non-profit hospitals $50,000 per occurrence
22
23
24
25
72
2
3
4 5
6
Sounds kind of
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I will
14
15
16 17
IS
19 20
21
22
23
24
25
72
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
I really don't
11
12
13
14
15
CHAIIWN OHISM:
that.
16 17
18
|VR. CHANEY:
OlAlRMftN CHESM:
Mr. Gottnrissioner.
19
|VR. CHANEY:
Thank you.
20
CHAlRMflW OHISM:
21
22
23 24
25
the two parties can get together, but I think that what we may need to start looking at is
we have a willing provider statute already
aavpUTER-AIDED -mANSCRIPTlON BY
2 3
4 5
the year. Tiwenty-fiDur states already do that, and so that might help the situation
some. But with that, Mr. chairman, I
6
7
8 9 10
n
Thank you,
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19
And I do appreciate everyone for beirg here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
metrbers of the House and Senate, we are
20
21
22
adjourned.
OE HEARING CDNCLUDBD at 11:15 A.M.)
23
24
25
GCMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTTON BY
3
4
OOINTY OF HIM3S
7 8
9 10
hereby certify that the foregoing pages contain a true and correct transcript of testimony taken by me at the
time and place heretofore stated, and later reduced to typewritten form by cotiprter-aided transcription under
11 12 13
14
ity supervision to the best of my skill and ability. I further certify that I am not in the enplpy of or related to any counsel or party in this matter, and
have no interest in the final outcome of the
15
proceedings.
16
17 18 19
20
21
hereto applies only to the original and certified transcript and electronic disks. "The undersigned assunes no responsibility for the accuracy of any
reproduced copies not made under my control or
direction.
22
23
This the
day of
, 2013.
certified Court Reporter
Barbara L. Crcawfiord,
24
25
COVPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION BY
EXfflBIT 2
..,T
PHIL BRYANT
GOVERNOR
October 17,2013
Flowood, MS 39232
Dear Ms. Pigott: It has now been nearly four months since Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi ("BCBS") abruptly announced that it was terminating its contracts with ten Mississippi hospitals, apparently as a result of a breach of contract lawsuit filed by the hospitals. As you know, these ten hospitals provide critical medical care to tens of thousands of Mississippians, many of whom are BCBS enrollees. This fact, coupled with BCBS's dominant market position, has caused me great concern that the hospitals' exclusion from the BCBS network will do serious harm to BCBS enrollees and patients of these hospitals and reduce access to care in the State generally.
Almost two months ago, we met to discuss the matter, which I appreciated, although our meeting did not seem to result in any progress. In a follow-up letter, I reiterated that I certainly respect BCBS's "right to make informed and appropriate business decisions within the limits of applicable state and federal laws" but expressed hope that, despite the ongoing litigation, the parties could find some middle groimd to preserve patients' access to care for the time being. That has not happened, and upon further study of the issue, I have become convinced that the exclusion of the hosphals from the BCBS network may not be within the limits of the law. The current impasse and its effects on patients raise several legal issues. Most important, the Mississippi Patient Protection Act of 1995 requires BCBS to "[djemonstrate that its provider
network has providers of sufficient number throughout the service area to assure reasonable access to care with minimum inconvenience by plan enrollees." Miss. Code Ann. 83-41-409(b). State law also broadly prohibits insurers from engaging in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Id, 83-5-33. In addhion, I am concerned that this situation may raise serious issues under Mississippi's antitrust laws. Based on these issues, I have asked the Department of Insurance whether they intend to act immediately to retum the ten affected hospitals to the BCBS network. If not, I intend to issue an
executive order to that end. After careful and deliberate consideration and consultation with the
Attorney General, I have concluded that my constitutional duty, as chief executive of the State, to "see that the laws are faithfully executed," Miss. Const, art. 5, 123, requires me to act now to enforce the law. Any further delay risks irreparable harm and a loss of the access to care. EXHIBIT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR POSTOFHCE BOX 139 JACKSON. MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE: (601) 359-3150 FAX: (601) 359-3741 www.govemorbrYant.com
The threat to patients that I feel compelled to address can be avoided only if all ten of the
affected hospitals are returned to the BCBS network immediately. Let me be clear that I am not taking sides in your underlying contractual dispute with the hospitals. I have no opinion about that lawsuit. As far as I am concerned, until that dispute is settled by the parties or resolved by a court, BCBS may simply retum the hospitals to the status quo as it existed before their contracts were terminated; i.e., BCBS may continue to interpret and apply the contracts as BCBS understands them. My only concern is patient access to care.
Therefore, please advise me by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow whether you will retum the ten affected hospitals to network status and to the status quo as it existed prior to their termination. Otherwise, I intend to issue an executive order to begin addressing this threat to BCBS enrollees
and access to care generally.
Smterely,
Phil Bryant
GOVERNOR
cc:
EXHIBITS
^--...'
i"''
PHIL BRYANT
GOVERNOR
October 17,2013
Commissioner Mike Chaney Mississippi Insurance Department 1001 Woolfolk State Office Building
501 North West Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Dear Commissioner Chaney; As I know you are aware, nearly four months ago, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi ("BCBS") abruptly announced that it was terminating its contracts with ten Mississippi hospitals: Natchez Community Hospital, Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (Clarksdale), Biloxi Regional Medical Center, Madison River Oaks Medical Center, Gilmore Memorial Regional Medical Center (Amory), Tri-Lakes Medical Center (Batesville), Central Mississippi Medical Center (Jackson), Crossgates River Oaks Hospital (Brandon), River Oaks Hospital (Flowood), and Woman's Hospital (Flowood). The apparent reason for the terminations, which took effect at the end of August, was the hospitals' decision to file a lawsuit against BCBS, alleging that BCBS had underpaid them under the terms of their contracts. I am sure that you are also aware that these ten hospitals provide critical medical care to tens of thousands of Mississippians, many of whom are BCBS enrollees, and that BCBS is by far the dominant private health insurer in the State of Mississippi. This combination of factors has caused me great concern that the parties' impasse will do serious harm to BCBS enrollees and patients of these hospitals and reduce access to care in the State generally.
The current impasse and its effects on patients implicate several statutes. First, the Mississippi Patient Protection Act of 1995 provides that a managed care plan must be able to "[djemonstrate that its provider network has providers of sufficient number throughout the service area to assure reasonable access to care with minimum inconvenience by plan enrollees." Miss. Code Ann. 83-41-409(b). Second, state law specifically prohibits insurers from engaging in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Id.^ 83-5-33. Third, state law generally authorizes the imposition of penalties on any insurer that "violates or neglects to comply with any provision of law obligatory on it." Id., 83-5-17.
I believe that the predicament facing these ten hospitals and their patients raises substantial questions under each of these statutes. However, after talking to you this afternoon, I understand that the Department of Insurance does not believe it has authority to act on these issues immediately, based on the evidence that is currently available. Recognizing this, after careful
and deliberate consideration and consultation with the Attorney General, I have concluded that
EXHIBIT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR POST OFFICE BOX 139 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE: (601) 359-3150 FAX: (601) 359-3741 www.governorbryant.com
my constitutional duty, as chief executive of the State, to "see that the laws are faithfully executed," Miss. Const, art. 5, 123, requires me to act now to enforce these and other applicable statutes. See State v. McPhaiU 180 So. 387 (Miss. 1938). Any further delay risks irreparable harm and a loss of access to care. In the event your office's view of the matter changes before the end of the day tomorrow, please notify me. Otherwise, I intend to issue an executive order to begin addressing this threat to BCBS enrollees and access to care generally.
As always, I appreciate your advice and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely.
Phil Bryant
GOVERNOR
cc:
EXHIBIT 4
FY 2014
MISSISSIPPI
EXHIBIT
4
The 96 acute care medicaL'surgicai hospitals reported 9,793 beds set up and staffed durmg 2011. or 89.44 percent of the total licensed bed capacity. Based on beds set up and staffed, the hospitals cxpcrienccd an overall occupancy rate of '17.20pcrccnt and an average length of stay of 4.67 days. When calculating the occupancy rate iising total licensed bed capacity, the overall occupancy rate di'Ops to 42-22 percent.Using these statistics and 201.S projectedpopulation totals. Mississippi had a licensed bed capacity to population latio of 3.54 per 1.000 and iui occupicd bed to population ratio of 1.50 per 1.000. Table 5-1 shows the licensed Mississippi hospital beds by service areas. These statistics indicate an average daily ccn.sus m Mississippi hospitals of 4.622.42. leaving appro.ximately 6.326.58unusedlicensed beds on any given day. SLxiy-ciglit of die state'shospitals rqjortcd occupancy rates of less than 40 percent during FY 2010. Mississippi requires Ceilificate of Need (CON) review for all projects that increase the bed complement of a health carc facility or cxcced a capital cxpenditmc tlircshold of S2 niilliuu. The law rciiuircs CON review regardless of capital cxpcnditiux for the coiistruclioit, development, or othei' estiiblishment of a new health care facility, including a replacement facility; the relocation of a health care facility or any poilion of the facihty which does not involve a capitalexpenditure and is more than 5.280 feet from llie mahi entrance of the facility; and a change of owuciship of an existing health carc facility, unless the MSDH receives proper notification at least 30 days in advance. A health care facility that has ceased to treat patients for a period of 60 months or more must rcceive CON approval prior to reopening. A CON is required for major medicalequipment
purchase if the capital expenditure exceeds $1.5 million and is not a replacement of existing
medical equipment.
A statewide glut of licensed acute care beds complicates plamiing for conmiuniiy hospital services, Thae nrc far nioic hospital beds thmi needed. The aveiagc use of licensed beds has been less than 50 percent in recent years. With few exceptions, the surplus is statewide. Thecontinued presence of suiplushospital bedsin all planning districts, andin neaily all counties with acute care
hospitals, raises a lumiber of basic plaiuiing questions:
Docs the 'caiiymg cost" of mainiaiihiig unused beds raise operating cost lamecessaiily? Do the surpluses, and any associated economic burdens, retaid the iniroducliou of new and
more cos! enective practices and services?
Do e-ustnig services providers maintain miwananted surpluses to siiield themselves 6om coinpetitioiLas argued by some potential competitoiT.?
1 Chapter 5 - Acule Care
Should ilic spiKc allotaicd to siirphis beds be converted to other uses. p:micularly if doing so wouid avoid constniction of new space, or facilities, to accommodate growing outpatient
caseloads?
Do the large siirj)hises mask need for additional services and capacity in some regions and rcduce the saisiiivity aiid responsiveness of plaiuieis and regulators to these legitunatc
coirmiujiity needs?
Do ihe coiitmuing surpluses, and the view of Uieni by stakeholders aiid other iiilcrcsied parties, create an enviroimieut that invites policy intervention by legislators and other responsible parties?
Tliese questions are mnisually difficult to answer defujitively. That tliey arise not infrequently
suggest the itnponance ofreducing excess capacity where it is possible to do so and isnot likely to
result in piobkuiatic couseciucuees. The Depailniait luges each hospital to voluntarily rcducc the licensedbed capacityio equal iis averagedaily censusplus a confidence factorthat will assiue that an unused hospital bed will be available on any given day.
Chapter 5 - AcuteCare
EXHIBIT 5
fle(^(4rion^ct{aff
SUNDAY, UuQBERn.^uiJ l';5il-'rrMl-jl-ORMA;ON SOUfv'CE
iledger.coni
KEV FINDINGS
*T.>Ar.ir,aK-.i* -wl iHfrti
!i.
PROCEDURES VARY
BY HOSPITAL?
h'f i>jt G-'tat nc of t* fKiJraS tri
fHKWvjrvwilcl^arry>ttg Mil ilmijctfmotf Sir-Q/'Onto' < pao\,<yturc b'JiM jt |tAi flnalhrf fiKiHTjMtdicJIIfi iliari'than 40
inroracnllonofiiiilK
bu( wouldn't pnsi lliit liriceorexpccianyoni:
lo pny i!.
In.iu^ncl, il unillil
collect ulwiii liair tfml
/ ^^ /V c'>1
e- * II*
.1
<in
prcfflt4lf tlif
iHtlppl hotpiMh but
*!MoS
' inrsf^xtKi online fcatufo I'Ctflfd byCbrfon-t^cf^cr re&mtrr (rrsfy It Co; .ihrt on our
ViTbvkte M
vmrw.cUr^nledgw^m.
INSIDE PERPEaiVES
COit of modr<.|) <4*V
um hMiiu)
linnoirpSiiuih
cudoniurs
drrin>ga riwi
iurribr
; IJnimutHl p^iltenli oticft raccUn* htgiunf coiti fnmc!ici) fire iJnptu itnaa- anOini- l^f) CdlinciT [Uy afnj min fMnk;ltipTi;v.
nii|:hl sou n fiOpcrcuni dLscuuiil nl the cash rcRistcr. Crciiii union nicmlwrs mii;ht set 30 purct-ni
nf/.'nir>schacl.i!j liv ihu federal
Milion payroll
all bui^eil bv
Ur^^wi'pi-irn
mio turAruptcy.
1G
EXHIBIT 5
dents
Hospital bills
Conlflued (ron> Pigt U
struggieioafroi^inediealcare.
Tbe private ari instnictor
iDKceathisuin'-
h I dairifi-
Thinkaf a Elv a DMey DednulSyRem termeOal qrmptana. Otaua ind dnerdenot the narvguisyssm fsl) undt> ccdes 20-t(S:thoM ef tlie digcMw ^tKcn W
beunderESS-TDO.
Everypenen who wtib Intft1 beipitt! gets asSgned one or mert ORGtbMd en theb qmptona snd the
NUMCs policy say* It offers free care to patients with househokl income levete below its sd-
The bate late IfadJusMd amulV. OKTently S,77A. AftarMedkanappDei tilt DRG tsihe baserate. Kthin fanen Inether vsriaUeivhewr tha hsQttal b ruraler matropolilMthecondttfemof lb tool labormarfcethiM> fflMtKhartty careItprovUs, triiethertt<s
an acadenk MBty, and ts en.
Thetrue cast,by(heway, is
BUaxi Regional Medical Center ehai^ Medicare anMrageel S3S.153 totraaiDRG 379 litFizal Year
The federal poverty guide line for a family of two tn 2011 was $14,710. according to the
relatively
$3314.
Sbe said abe asked for a dis
tal AssoTOttoo'g vice presidnt of trends analysis. *lt% really tbe payinents dsal are tbe inw
pomnt thing a (Mus on. At the
MMdipar an avcragt ef $1^ for evey daUarofcare previdni. HotpHabwilie off mrjians ef doHarsIncharitycare and impaid bOi each
ytit; but many ttUImake a profit
bow much
tlw moft ej^ensive hotpKabdorn aiMin haw the best bidependant hehh rating ReboUa lui^Hy hat grown aoes the Hate, thortenlrtg hospitalitayl but Inoeailng ooO. And Itsnot ahvajstha bea epdon. >CemnwnKir advocatescan weekWTth previdento pro4deJow<osi.pre><Uve health care.
Its
nrst
char^ in May,when theObaxna administration authorized tlie release of reams of data tnm tbe Centers for Medicare and Medlcaid Services.
Organized
into
patients no more than they would expect to receive in reloy bursemena from a patient widi
MedicBRi or cotnmerdal insur
ance.
suchdi^arities at tiiegrocery
stive. Hovltalpatiaots, though,
For thesetvasons,manyhos
pey months after the purchase atid have no one wilh whom to compare bills.
A better anab^ is the auto
pital edmiftlitruor* criticized the Medicare charge data for coAfustag tbe piAUc. not en
mles-tMpples
tbefull prieeanywey.
profitsmeaningMissis^i^ roughly tnodocenfoiH>roftt fadllra can continue charging the uninsured full price, thaugn
manydonoi.
At least OK executive,
In tbe grocery store analogv. Medicare patients are the foMstamp sbtnpers. And they acteg patients at Mississippi oas-
sippiHospital Associatkw).
Ifa s giant revenue aource eryone understands tbe price is a moving target, Wentzsaid. Auto msurere might even en ter the pictiire, havugoegotialed spew discounts with pre ferred providers.
Bui customer* rarely face
teas of thousands of dollars in
No^ Misriaripfn Health Ser- And auto shop prices aient Tliat^venus an iasaitdpatient
charged by i>ospital& wntt Uraed hospital charge biflatfaa partly on how
the fadlitle* negotiate with in
surers.
priw
Oemrsl Mlsaisslfipl
Dearly a> Inflated as those whopaysa few thousand dollars after a pian reimbunes most of the discoumed price. Uninsured patieats can ne
"When we went thiongh our
gotiate for a lower price after genisg the bOI, said Sbane
Aguirre, fbraer CFO at AlU-
erM of $9,571.
why snch wide reargtna? Hospltd exeeutives cited a
what the government pays, hos pital execuUves say uiey have
charges.
That's becauseMedicareIg
nores the alckel-aatf-dimlag
that hospitals doandpays only a
to boosttheir char^
There Is what Is known as
AHA^Stelob^soid."Ifsbeen ey."
doCTimwted in a number of studies that we've done. If one
surer*askforbig^ discounts,
so... you gel the picture.
Hie cycle started in the cariy
payer doesnt pay what it costs, you have to make it up from an other payer.*
For hospitals, therenl prpnts
one ftom commerdal litiur-
ftXCiptlOftS.
en, ^
pltaTexecutives saytheagency on titelr haid-fougbt contracts consistenfly undeipeys, a post- wife the hospitals.
tioQ supperted by natioaai re
hi^Hpaidspecialiststisingmuv
ti-milliao-dflUar tedmelogy ona NcA only that, but many hoapitBls 6xptnd thfilr
The biggeet misconceptloo search. sarers relmlnirse 136percent of Medicare reimburses an av- tbe cost, according to the AHA. is that hospitals are diar^g ereae of 91 cents for every doiTlie more dients an insurer too mudi to rip off consntDert,* tar nealth care facilities spend reprsenta, Ae biner tbe di- Wants said. 1 cantthlok ofany treeting Its patiants, aecoralng. cotmt it can finagle, said Shane one who^ happy with the cur to an annual survey by the AgnizTe, fonner CFO at ADi- rent prtdng mechanism. We'd aiKe Healthcare System in Hot like It to be simpler and more
American HonitalAssocutlon. Tlte AHA Medicare
ly Springs.
transparent."
Heavywel^its in Mississippi
inchida insurers like Bloe Qties
chargesomuch..they doni ex
ttpsy."
lb (cnlKl fmiy U Ck aSt)V
f(l-n*9rlBotrhrrcn IMlMr
pbyBtedpreseoct 6Ddmedical
cap^flitt.
^lits yearalooe,
hospitals have wonapproval for
a $615 tnilUoB ra
eeiyjeeat