Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee re Blue Cross class action settlement

To: Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, c/o directors Danne Howard and Robin Stone, 

Re: $2.7 billion Blue Cross Blue Shield class action settlement

I believe the organizational purposes of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee should give the Committee an interest in the above class action settlement and in the objection to the settlement that I have filed, which objection is set out at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/08/my-objection-in-bcbs-class-action.html.

I am directing this communication to ACJRC in care of directors Danne Howard and Robin Stone, because Ms. Howard is deputy director of the Alabama Hospital Association; Mr. Stone was Vice President of Governmental Affairs of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama; those two organizations have special knowledge relative to the subject matter of the class action lawsuit; and Ms. Howard and Mr. Stone should be specially qualified to evaluate my objection to the class action settlement.

My above objection describes my objection as follows: 

Reducing health care costs is an important national objective. The class action purports to recover past health costs that were allegedly excessive because of anti-competitive practices that Blue Cross Blue Shield had in the conduct of their  health insurance business, and to end those practices to prevent those excessive health care costs going forward.

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 solicit the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee to support me in what I am doing relative to my objection.