I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield New Mexico health insurance policyholder who signed off on last month’s controversial rate hike settlement, has asked the state Insurance Division to reverse its approval of that deal.
Jody Neal-Post submitted a motion Thursday to reverse the rate hike settlement she signed last month with the company and state Attorney General’s office.
Citing a “post-settlement revelation” suggesting the insurer’s law firm failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the case, Neal-Post sought interim state Insurance Superintendent Craig Dunbar‘s reversal of the settlement approval.
Lead counsel Paul Bardacke‘s law firm previously employed an attorney who participated in Health Care Services Corporation (HCSC)’s acquisition of Blue Cross Blue Shield NM a decade ago, Neal-Post’s motion states.
But the other attorney’s work in that case was not on behalf of Blue Cross Blue Shield and did not constitute a conflict of interest in the current rate case, Bardacke said.
The attorney in question served as a pro-bono attorney for Health Action New Mexico and the Coalition to Save Healthcare Resources in the acquisition case, according to the motion.
But knowing that may have affected Neal-Post’s decision to sign the settlement agreement, her motion states. Bardacke failed to disclose the potential conflict of interest, as required, Neal-Post said Thursday.
Neal-Post was the original complainant in the current rate hike case. She is a Blue Cross Blue Shield NM health insurance policyholder and Albuquerque attorney.
Defection is second challenge to rate hike
Neal-Post’s defection from the settlement is the second challenge to the state Insurance Division’s approval of the rate hike settlement.
Public Regulation Commission (PRC) Commissioners voted May 13 to direct the state Insurance Superintendent to vacate the approval and hold a public hearing before reconsidering the hike.
Commissioners had ordered the Insurance Division in March to hold a public hearing on the proposed rate hike, and condemned weekend negotiations Commissioner Jason Marks described as a “back room deal” to raise insurance rates without policyholders’ input.
Blue Cross Blue Shield NM attorneys have threatened to sue the PRC if the settlement’s approval is reversed.
Blue Cross Blue Shield NM rate hikes have been approved every year since 2004, apparently without documentation supporting expense and loss figures claimed in the company’s filings, The Independent found.
Health insurance rate-setting expert Allan I. Schwartz concluded the insurer had inflated its losses over recent years.
The insurer’s rate hike filing also claimed expenses more than twice as high as those reported in parent company HCSC’s annual report.
Despite ominous allusions to Blue Cross Blue Shield NM’s solvency by company and Insurance Division officials, and despite hints the firm may have had to pull out of the rural New Mexico individual insurance market without the rate hike, HCSC is financially strong, The Independent reported. HCSC has $6.7 billion in reserves and executives received record bonuses last year of up to $15 million, on top of salaries, The Independent found.
But Blue Cross Blue Shield NM attorneys sought last month to strike testimony about the company’s financial strength from the rate case record, unsuccessfully claiming the company’s financial position is “irrelevant” in determining whether or not the rate hike was justified.
