3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
rdshatt@aol.com
July 12, 2021
BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Blue Cross Blue Shield Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91393
Seattle, WA 98111
copies to
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD SETTLEMENT
C/O MICHAEL D. HAUSFELD HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD SETTLEMENT
C/O DAVID BOIES
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
DAN LAYTIN
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 N. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60657
Dear Sirs:
I object to the settlement in In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litigation.
A. Description of my objections
I believe that the effect that Defendants' business practices had on health insurance premiums and health care costs during the years 2008 through 2020, and the effect of the Injunctive Relief in the future, are grossly speculative.
With said effects being grossly speculative, Plaintiffs' attorneys are in a position to agree to any settlement, practically no matter how small, and thereby receive very large attorneys' fees.
Defendants' officers and directors can go along with a small settlement that will not have a material adverse effect on Defendants' business, and the stakeholders in the Defendants will not be bothered to complain about the settlement being excessive (since the settlement is small).
In the foregoing situation there is potential for Plaintiffs' attorneys abusing the judicial branch of government to get large attorneys' fees on grounds that are grossly speculative, so grossly speculative that there was no detriment from the business practices for 2008 through 2020, and, in the future, the Injunctive Relief will in fact be detrimental, and not beneficial, to class members and to other consumers of health insurance.
To appreciate how grossly speculative the effect of the Defendants' business practices was, and of the Injunctive Relief in the future, requires extensive knowledge about health care markets and health insurance markets. These markets are extremely complex in their workings, and there are many different business practices by many different actors in the said markets that are interrelated and have interrelated effects. For example, if a business practice of an actor is precluded, it is speculative about what other practices will be adopted or modified, and what the net effect will be on health insurance premiums and health care costs
With things being so grossly speculative, Plaintiffs' attorneys will not lose sleep over whether Defendants' business practices in 2008 to 2020 were, and Injunctive Relief will be, beneficial, neutral or detrimental to health insurance markets and consumers of health insurance.
There are, however, governmental officials and entities who are charged by law to be concerned about how health insurance markets work for consumers and what changes will improve or not improve their operation for consumers.
Even these knowledgeable and experienced governmental officials and entities may be beset by great uncertainty in judging the detriment, if any, of Defendant's business practices in 2008 through 2020, and the benefit, if any, that will come from the Injunctive Relief, in the complex and interrelated markets for health insurance and health care.
To protect the judicial branch from being abused by Plaintiffs' attorneys, the Court should hear from one or more of these governmental officials and entities about what their opinion is concerning the detriment of Defendants' business practices in 2008 to 2020, and net benefit the Injunctive Relief will provide to class members and other consumers in the health insurance market.
To that end, I have solicited governmental officials to review the settlement agreement and to give the court the benefit of their views, as aforesaid.
I have been doing this in the form of a letter I have disseminated to them by various means in the form set out at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/05/bcbs-settlement-reducing-health-care.html
The named addressees of said letter are my state and Federal officials consisting of Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, United States Senator Richard Shelby, United States Senator Tommy Tuberville, U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Alabama state Senator Dan Roberts, and Alabama state Rep. Jim Carns. Said officials may forward my solicitation to appropriate other governmental officials and governmental departments and agencies having the needed expertise to review the settlement.
I have not received any responses as of this time.
I will continue my solicitation of them and of possibly other appropriate Federal and state governmental officials. In my further solicitation, I may revise the foregoing form of letter and also include a copy of this letter of mine making my objection.
I will supplement this objection by providing to the addressee and copied parties on this letter such written responses as I receive from governmental officials and entities in response to my foregoing solicitation.
I am uncertain at this time whether I will attend the Fairness Hearing on October 20, 2021. A main factor affecting whether I will attend is whether any governmental official or officials will attend with me and speak to the Court or whether I have been provided with a written submission or submissions to the Court that I want to present in person to the court.
B. Information related to me
My full name, address, email address, telephone number are set out above.
I turned 65 in 2012. To the best of my knowledge and belief, from 2008 until 2012 I was insured under the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama Individual Plan that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama provided from 2008 to 2012. I contacted toll-free (888) 681-1142 to try to obtain confirmation of my Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama dates of coverage and was told that the Administrator did not have such information at this time, but that information would be obtained when needed. An automated message on (888) 681-1142 said I should not contact Blue Cross Blue Shield for the information because it was not set up to respond to inquiries from members of the class related to the class action.
My objection applies to both Settlement Classes. I have no counsel representing me in this objection, and there are no former or current counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any reason related to my objection There is no agreement trelating to my objection or the process of my objecting between me and any other person or entity:
Signed
_______________________________
Robert D. Shattuck, Jr.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in my above objection is true and correct.
_________________________________________
Robert D. Shattuck, Jr.
No comments:
Post a Comment