I have a longstanding effort for Rep. Palmer to engage with his constituents (including myself) concerning his health care policy ideas. A sense of the substance of this can be found at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2017/03/al-expertise.html
Earlier this year I contacted Rep. Palmer (as well as Senators Shelby and Tuberville and my Alabama officials and reps) about a class action lawsuit concerning Blue Cross Blue Shield allegedly restricting competition in health care insurance during years 2008 through 2020 and thereby increasing health care premiums and health care costs. See BCBS settlement -reducing health care costs
I solicited Rep. Palmer (and the others I contacted) to submit their views to the Court of whether the class action settlement would help reduce health insurance premiums and health care costs.
Last month I attended the first day of the fairness hearing in the class action settlement, and I sent the email set out below to those persons and others I had contacted.
This is a continuation of effort for Rep. Palmer to engage with his constituents (including myself) concerning his health care policy ideas and further expose his policy ideas for public consideration, including by the Court in the Blue Cross class action litigation.
[My email]
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>To: John.McDonald@insurance.alabama.gov <John.McDonald@insurance.alabama.gov>; lindsey.lewis@alsenate.gov <lindsey.lewis@alsenate.gov>; karen.mcguire@shpda.alabama.gov <karen.mcguire@shpda.alabama.gov>; elizabeth.hance@mail.house.gov <elizabeth.hance@mail.house.gov>; dhoward@alaha.org <dhoward@alaha.org>; robins@bcatoday.org <robins@bcatoday.org>; morrisey@uab.edu <morrisey@uab.edu>; nborkows@uab.edu <nborkows@uab.edu>; cratclif@samford.edu <cratclif@samford.edu>; gil_hanahan@tuberville.senate.gov <gil_hanahan@tuberville.senate.gov>; jwcarns@gmail.com <jwcarns@gmail.com>; catherine.sharkey@nyu.edu <catherine.sharkey@nyu.edu>
Cc: egentle@gtandslaw.com <egentle@gtandslaw.com>; BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com <BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com>; BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com <BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com>; BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com <BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; kharbison@gtandslaw.com <kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 27, 2021 8:21 am
Subject: Status report re Blue Cross Blue Shield class action settlement
Sent: Wed, Oct 27, 2021 8:21 am
Subject: Status report re Blue Cross Blue Shield class action settlement
For the offices of:
The Honorable Kay Ivey
The Honorable Richard Shelby
The Honorable Tommy Tuberville
The Honorable Gary Palmer
The Honorable Steve Marshall
The Honorable Dan Roberts
The Honorable Jim Carns
(via the above email addressees in some cases and using website contact forms in some cases after sending this email)
AND
To above email addressees to whom I otherwise previously communicated regarding this matter
Last Wednesday I attended the first day of the fairness hearing at the United States courthouse in Birmingham.
The interest I am trying to advance is that of lowering health insurance premiums and health care costs for Alabamians (and other Americans).
I am questioning whether the class action, the settlement agreement, and the Injunctive Relief are beneficial and advisable in advancing the objective of lowering health insurance premiums and health care costs.
As the second email below indicates, the Home Depot lawyer raised in the fairness hearing that the Injunctive Relief would be an experiment going forward, that there is great uncertainty about what will in fact happen in the health insurance industry if the Injunctive Relief is put in place, and that the Injunctive Relief could form the structure of the health insurance industry (and affect the entirety of the health care system) for many years to come, and questioned what is or should be the effect of the Injunctive Relief in light of that.
Further, at the first day of the fairness hearing, Judge Proctor more than once asked about the federal antitrust regulators and why they did nothing for decades even though the Blue Cross Blue Shield practices were well known to them for decades, why weren't the federal regulators commenting to the Court about the settlement agreement, and what should he Judge Proctor make of the non-involvement of the federal regulators.
My information is that none of the federal and state officials who were given the required CAFA notice of the class action settlement responded to the notice, with the exception that the Department of Labor filed something in the nature of an objection. (My recollection is that Judge Proctor said that he was aware that the Washington State Insurance Commissioner viewed the class action settlement favorably.)
The purpose of my prior communications directed to Gov. Ivey, Senators Shelby and Tuberville, Rep. Palmer, AG Marshall, Sen. Roberts, and Rep. Carns, and to other addressees on this email, was to solicit input from them about the settlement agreement from the perspectives of their official governmental positions or other professional or academic interests regarding health insurance premiums and health care costs, and for such input to be provided to the the Court to consider in its review of the settlement agreement.
The opportunity to provide such input to the Court would seem to still exist. Any input to the Court at this time might be provided directly to the Special Master Mr. Ed Gentle (email address is above), or you can provide it to me and I will refer it to Mr. Gentle.
Thank you very much for you attention to this email.
Sincerely,
From: Edgar C. Gentle III <egentle@gtandslaw.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Cc: BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com <BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com>; BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com <BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com>; BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com <BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; Kip Harbison <kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 7:49 am
Subject: Re: BCBS settlement - Withdrawal of request to speak
Thanks Rob, I have passed your email on to the Court.
Stay safe and I hope to see you soon,
Ed
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: egentle@gtandslaw.com <egentle@gtandslaw.com>
Cc: bcbs-settlement@bsfllp.com <bcbs-settlement@bsfllp.com>; bcbssettlement@hausfeld.com <bcbssettlement@hausfeld.com>; bcbssettlement@kirkland.com <bcbssettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; Kharbison@gtandslaw.com <Kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 7:44 am
Subject: BCBS settlement - Withdrawal of request to speak
Dear Ed,
Taking to heart what Judge Proctor said at the end of the day yesterday, I withdraw my request to speak at the fairness hearing today.
As I indicated to you, I filed with the Clerk of the Court yesterday my Memorandum Regarding Objection of Robert Shattuck (which Memorandum I had emailed on Sunday to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, and Counsel for Settling Defendants, as well as to yourself).
I don't know how much more Judge Proctor will ask about the federal antitrust regulators and why have they done nothing for decades, why aren't they commenting to the Court about the settlement agreement, and what should he Judge Proctor make of the non-involvement of the federal antitrust regulators.
Also, I don't know how much more Judge Proctor will mention how large companies as well have for decades taken no legal steps to challenge the BCBS arrangements.
I was very taken by the remarks of Home Depot's counsel about the injunctive relief being an experiment going forward, the great uncertainty concerning what will in fact happen in the health insurance industry if the injunctive relief is put in place, how the injunctive relief could form the structure of the health insurance industry (and affect the entirety of the health care system) for many years to come, and what is or should be the effect of the injunctive relief in light of that.
As my Objection and Memorandum indicate, I initiated trying to get the views of my two U.S. Senators and my Representative in Congress, as well as of my relevant state officials, regarding the settlement agreement from their perspectives as lawmakers and government administrators involved with the health care system and health insurance.
Since approval of the settlement agreement is likely still a couple of weeks off, I may continue with my efforts and file a Supplemental Memorandum if I learn anything further that warrants calling to the attention of the Court.
I have included Home Depot's counsel Mr. Frank Lowrey to receive a copy of this email, having emailed to him last night my Memorandum for what it was worth to Home Depot and him in pursuing Home Depot's objectives relative to the settlement agreement.
I have two concluding comments.
First, the uncertainty that exists regarding what the effect of the injunctive relief will be going forward (if the injunctive relief is put in place at this time) similarly exists in retrospect for the damages period 2008 to 2020. Just as it is unknown how much future competition will keep future insurance premiums lower, it is unknown how much increased competition in the 2008 to 2020 period would have kept insurance premiums lower if the injunctive relief had been put in place in 2008.
Second, it behooves keeping in mind that total annual United States health care spending is about $3.5 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion comes through private health insurance, and comparing to that Plaintiffs estimate of a potential maximum single damages recovery that ranges from $18.6 billion to $36.1 billion, i.e. Plaintiffs estimate that health insurance premiums and health care costs were excessive by a maximum of $36.1 billion, and said excess $36.1 billion is not an excess amount annually but an excess amount spread over the 2008 to 2012 damages settlement period. That $36.1 billion excess is less than a pimple on annual health insurance premiums (and health care costs from health insurance) of $1.2 trillion. It is submitted that the larger the amount of health insurance premiums and health care costs, which are affected by multiple and changing factors that are contributing to the total premiums and health care costs, the harder it is to model/show/estimate/quantify how much a small factor (Defendants' arrangements) contributed to, or will contribute to total health insurance premiums and total health care costs.
By the same token, the large companies that did nothing for decades about Defendants' known business practices had total health care costs that came from a variety of factors that could be worked on to reduce their health care costs. Defendants' arrangements could have been viewed as a small factor, and such large companies decided other factors were more worthy of their attention for working to reduce their health care costs.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
The interest I am trying to advance is that of lowering health insurance premiums and health care costs for Alabamians (and other Americans).
I am questioning whether the class action, the settlement agreement, and the Injunctive Relief are beneficial and advisable in advancing the objective of lowering health insurance premiums and health care costs.
As the second email below indicates, the Home Depot lawyer raised in the fairness hearing that the Injunctive Relief would be an experiment going forward, that there is great uncertainty about what will in fact happen in the health insurance industry if the Injunctive Relief is put in place, and that the Injunctive Relief could form the structure of the health insurance industry (and affect the entirety of the health care system) for many years to come, and questioned what is or should be the effect of the Injunctive Relief in light of that.
Further, at the first day of the fairness hearing, Judge Proctor more than once asked about the federal antitrust regulators and why they did nothing for decades even though the Blue Cross Blue Shield practices were well known to them for decades, why weren't the federal regulators commenting to the Court about the settlement agreement, and what should he Judge Proctor make of the non-involvement of the federal regulators.
My information is that none of the federal and state officials who were given the required CAFA notice of the class action settlement responded to the notice, with the exception that the Department of Labor filed something in the nature of an objection. (My recollection is that Judge Proctor said that he was aware that the Washington State Insurance Commissioner viewed the class action settlement favorably.)
The purpose of my prior communications directed to Gov. Ivey, Senators Shelby and Tuberville, Rep. Palmer, AG Marshall, Sen. Roberts, and Rep. Carns, and to other addressees on this email, was to solicit input from them about the settlement agreement from the perspectives of their official governmental positions or other professional or academic interests regarding health insurance premiums and health care costs, and for such input to be provided to the the Court to consider in its review of the settlement agreement.
The opportunity to provide such input to the Court would seem to still exist. Any input to the Court at this time might be provided directly to the Special Master Mr. Ed Gentle (email address is above), or you can provide it to me and I will refer it to Mr. Gentle.
Thank you very much for you attention to this email.
Sincerely,
From: Edgar C. Gentle III <egentle@gtandslaw.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Cc: BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com <BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com>; BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com <BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com>; BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com <BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; Kip Harbison <kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 7:49 am
Subject: Re: BCBS settlement - Withdrawal of request to speak
Thanks Rob, I have passed your email on to the Court.
Stay safe and I hope to see you soon,
Ed
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: egentle@gtandslaw.com <egentle@gtandslaw.com>
Cc: bcbs-settlement@bsfllp.com <bcbs-settlement@bsfllp.com>; bcbssettlement@hausfeld.com <bcbssettlement@hausfeld.com>; bcbssettlement@kirkland.com <bcbssettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; Kharbison@gtandslaw.com <Kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 7:44 am
Subject: BCBS settlement - Withdrawal of request to speak
Dear Ed,
Taking to heart what Judge Proctor said at the end of the day yesterday, I withdraw my request to speak at the fairness hearing today.
As I indicated to you, I filed with the Clerk of the Court yesterday my Memorandum Regarding Objection of Robert Shattuck (which Memorandum I had emailed on Sunday to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, and Counsel for Settling Defendants, as well as to yourself).
I don't know how much more Judge Proctor will ask about the federal antitrust regulators and why have they done nothing for decades, why aren't they commenting to the Court about the settlement agreement, and what should he Judge Proctor make of the non-involvement of the federal antitrust regulators.
Also, I don't know how much more Judge Proctor will mention how large companies as well have for decades taken no legal steps to challenge the BCBS arrangements.
I was very taken by the remarks of Home Depot's counsel about the injunctive relief being an experiment going forward, the great uncertainty concerning what will in fact happen in the health insurance industry if the injunctive relief is put in place, how the injunctive relief could form the structure of the health insurance industry (and affect the entirety of the health care system) for many years to come, and what is or should be the effect of the injunctive relief in light of that.
As my Objection and Memorandum indicate, I initiated trying to get the views of my two U.S. Senators and my Representative in Congress, as well as of my relevant state officials, regarding the settlement agreement from their perspectives as lawmakers and government administrators involved with the health care system and health insurance.
Since approval of the settlement agreement is likely still a couple of weeks off, I may continue with my efforts and file a Supplemental Memorandum if I learn anything further that warrants calling to the attention of the Court.
I have included Home Depot's counsel Mr. Frank Lowrey to receive a copy of this email, having emailed to him last night my Memorandum for what it was worth to Home Depot and him in pursuing Home Depot's objectives relative to the settlement agreement.
I have two concluding comments.
First, the uncertainty that exists regarding what the effect of the injunctive relief will be going forward (if the injunctive relief is put in place at this time) similarly exists in retrospect for the damages period 2008 to 2020. Just as it is unknown how much future competition will keep future insurance premiums lower, it is unknown how much increased competition in the 2008 to 2020 period would have kept insurance premiums lower if the injunctive relief had been put in place in 2008.
Second, it behooves keeping in mind that total annual United States health care spending is about $3.5 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion comes through private health insurance, and comparing to that Plaintiffs estimate of a potential maximum single damages recovery that ranges from $18.6 billion to $36.1 billion, i.e. Plaintiffs estimate that health insurance premiums and health care costs were excessive by a maximum of $36.1 billion, and said excess $36.1 billion is not an excess amount annually but an excess amount spread over the 2008 to 2012 damages settlement period. That $36.1 billion excess is less than a pimple on annual health insurance premiums (and health care costs from health insurance) of $1.2 trillion. It is submitted that the larger the amount of health insurance premiums and health care costs, which are affected by multiple and changing factors that are contributing to the total premiums and health care costs, the harder it is to model/show/estimate/quantify how much a small factor (Defendants' arrangements) contributed to, or will contribute to total health insurance premiums and total health care costs.
By the same token, the large companies that did nothing for decades about Defendants' known business practices had total health care costs that came from a variety of factors that could be worked on to reduce their health care costs. Defendants' arrangements could have been viewed as a small factor, and such large companies decided other factors were more worthy of their attention for working to reduce their health care costs.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
No comments:
Post a Comment