ShareThis Page
AG Shapiro begins making case for blocking UPMC-Highmark split | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

AG Shapiro begins making case for blocking UPMC-Highmark split

Natasha Lindstrom
1273957_web1_EC35ED83-6C91-4D9F-934B-18DE924D291C_ne201961013519673
Natasha Lindstrom | Tribune-Review Natasha Lindstrom | Tribune-Review
Jim Donahue (far right), executive deputy attorney general, exits the courtroom after taking the stand in support of Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s case against UPMC at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg on Monday, June 10, 2019.
1273957_web1_2FCFDAA5-3925-4059-AC2E-2D1D4F5D1AF8_ne2019610135043822
Natasha Lindstrom | Tribune-Review
Leon DeJulius, a Jones Day Attorney representing UPMC, leaves the courtroom shortly after delivering his opening remarks and listening to the direct examination of Jim Donahue in Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s case against UPMC at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg on Monday, June 10, 2019. Officials and lawyers with the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office head to the elevator during a brief lunch break during the first day of a two-day Commonwealth Court trial against UPMC at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg on Monday, June 10, 2019.
1273957_web1_3A1DBD13-7D05-4AA2-8DFF-E95289C9B244_ne2019610135143865
Natasha Lindstrom | Tribune-Review Natasha Lindstrom | Tribune-Review

HARRISBURG — Three types of patients never were supposed to be affected by the insurance network split of UPMC and Highmark — children, the poor and seniors, Jim Donahue of the Pennsylvania Attorney’s General Office said Monday in Commonwealth Court.

State officials decided to intervene in the clash of Western Pennsylvania’s nonprofit health care titans several years ago because the stakes were high and possible negative impacts far-reaching, Donahue testified before a packed courtroom at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg.

His comments came during the first of two days of testimony in a hearing to decide if the separation agreement between the two insurers can be altered years after is was first approved. Under that agreement, Highmark insured patients no longer will have in-network access to most UPMC facilities and doctors.

UPMC and Highmark were unable to agree on contracts to preserve access to both systems following Highmark’s 2011 acquisition of the former West Penn Allegheny Health Network. Donahue said hundreds of thousands of patients faced losing access to doctors and hospitals at affordable rates.

“We were concerned that UPMC and Highmark, left to their own devices, could potentially kill somebody or bankrupt somebody (by) carrying on their dispute too long,” Donahue testified. “We didn’t know what the future holds and if in five years these guys (would be) going at it again.”

On June 27, 2014, then-Gov. Tom Corbett and Attorney General Kathleen Kane lauded a new agreement, called a consent decree, signed by the Downtown Pittsburgh-based rivals. The deal, set to expire on June 30, was touted as a resolution to protect health care consumers while holding nonprofit leaders accountable.

But, in the weeks leading up to and even after the decree was signed, state officials had lingering qualms and uncertainty about how the rivals’ mid-2019 final split actually would play out, Donahue said. Relations were so heated and contentious that attorneys from UPMC and attorneys from Highmark refused to even be in the same room together while negotiating and signing the documents.

The Attorney General’s Office sought to fold a “modification” clause into the decree that allowed the option to revisit, change and possibly extend the agreement’s terms for the public good, Donahue said.

State Attorney General Josh Shapiro now seeks to use that provision to stop the UPMC-Highmark split from happening at the end of this month.

Donahue — executive deputy attorney general and a lead negotiator involved in executing the five-year-old consent decree — was the first witness to testify in a two-day trial pitting the Attorney General’s Office and Highmark against UPMC. A state Supreme Court opinion last month required the non-jury trial, or evidentiary hearing.

Judge Robert Simpson is tasked with deciding a critical question: Can the court change the June 30 end date of the state-brokered order governing relations between UPMC and Highmark in the name of protecting the public’s interest?

UPMC asserts that the expiration date cannot be changed, and that UPMC executives never would have signed the decree if they knew it could ever be extended without their consent.

The decree merely assured that certain Highmark-insured patients had “temporary access” to UPMC facilities and time to allow for a smoother transition once the UPMC-Highmark divorce became final, UPMC Attorney Leon DeJulius of Jones Day law firm said.

DeJulius questioned the notion that either the Attorney General’s Office or Shapiro actually believed at the time of signing the compromise that the modification clause could be applied to the decree’s expiration date.

Shapiro contends that the modification clause is broad and allows for any of the involved parties, UPMC, Highmark or the state, to ask the court for changes that can be proven to benefit the public interest.

Thomas VanKirk, chief legal counsel for Highmark, took the witness stand Monday afternoon. He testified that, as far as Highmark is concerned, the modification clause could be applied to anything in the decree, including when it ends. He said Highmark merely wouldn’t want UPMC to have the unilateral power to do so without court approval.

“We all had the opportunity to view the consent decree,” VanKirk said. “To me, the modification clause was pretty darn clear that it was not limited in any way, otherwise it would have been spelled out.”

Arguing for Shapiro’s office, Jonathan Goldman further said that UPMC never asked for a “carve-out” to prohibit the modification clause from applying to the end date.

“If you want to make a change to an agreement, you have to speak up,” Goldman said in his opening remarks.

The trial will resume Tuesday morning with witnesses called by UPMC. Potential witnesses include UPMC Chief Legal Counsel Thomas McGough, former Insurance Commissioner Michael Consedine and former state Health Secretary Michael Wolf.

“We look forward to presenting our case and the rest of our evidence, which is very strong,” Wood said.

Judge Simpson said he plans to issue a ruling by Friday.

That will leave just two weeks for the losing party to try to appeal or achieve further recourse before the UPMC-Highmark split as scheduled.

Even if he fails to halt the June 30 breakup, Shapiro will continue to wage legal war against UPMC for months if not years — until he is satisfied the system is acting like a public charity, Shapiro spokesman Joe Grace said.

“No matter what happens this week, we’re not going away,” Grace said.

Wood flatly dismissed Donahue’s claim that the UPMC-Highmark feud threatens the lives and finances of Western Pennsylvanians.

“Anybody who shows up for an ER is going to be well treated… and get some of the best care available anywhere in the world,” Wood said, “and nobody can suggest otherwise.”

UPMC maintains that it has no obligation to offer non-emergency treatment to Highmark patients after June 30 and that it is making an “accommodation” by allowing Medicare Advantage and Hillman Cancer Center patients to do so — concessions UPMC announced just last week.

Highmark’s commercial market patients not receiving oncology care at Hillman Cancer Center still will be subject to a controversial prepay rule as of July 1 at most UPMC hospitals and specialty centers — including UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital, UPMC St. Margaret and UPMC Monroeville. Exceptions include Western Psychiatric Institute, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and hospitals in rural areas.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Natasha at 412-380-8514, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.