Pa. Supreme Court to take up AG Shapiro’s case against UPMC | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Pa. Supreme Court to take up AG Shapiro’s case against UPMC

Natasha Lindstrom
1037232_web1_web-upmc-highmark

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to take up Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s case against health giant UPMC, setting the stage for a showdown next month in Harrisburg.

The high court is scheduled to meet next on May 14, 15 and 16.

Shapiro spokesman Joe Grace described the court’s willingness to take up the appeal quickly as “welcome news.”

“Through this appeal to the Supreme Court, our case will move forward and our efforts to protect Western Pennsylvanians’ access to affordable care will continue,” Grace said.

The attorney general seeks to delay this summer’s insurance network breakup between Downtown Pittsburgh- based rival health systems UPMC and Highmark, in hopes of ultimately enabling thousands of seniors, cancer patients and people with disabilities to maintain access to doctors within both systems.

Shapiro is racing against a 73-day clock until a 2014 state-brokered consent decree between the two rivals expires.

On Wednesday, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson ordered that Shapiro’s petition to modify the UPMC-Highmark decree be put on hold, or “stayed,” in light of the Supreme Court proceedings.

The Supreme Court is tasked with ruling on a narrow but critical dispute: whether Shapiro has the authority to change the June 30 expiration date of the consent decree.

UPMC spokesman Paul Wood said the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Shapiro’s right to appeal was “expected.”

“UPMC is confident the Supreme Court will affirm the Commonwealth Court’s April 3, 2019, ruling that the Consent Decrees end on June 30, 2019, which is based on the previous Supreme Court decision from last July,” Wood said in a statement.

Shapiro appealed to the Supreme Court an opinion issued earlier this month by Simpson that said the expiration date could not be changed or extended indefinitely. Simpson said his findings were in line with a Supreme Court ruling last summer, when Shapiro failed to convince the court to extend the consent decree until the end of 2020 for patients insured by Medicare Advantage plans, privately offered alternatives to traditional Medicare.

If Shapiro fails to win an extension this time, he’ll have weeks left before the decree expires, and efforts to force changes on UPMC through the agreement could be rendered effectively moot.

If Shapiro wins his appeal, he then wants to use the consent decree as a vehicle to seek new concessions and requirements by UPMC — including forcing it to contract with Highmark and any other interested provider or insurer “in perpetuity” and drop a controversial prepay rule for out-of-network patients. It also asks for other demands specific to UPMC, including that it replace a majority of its board.

UPMC has argued in court filings that Shapiro not only waited too long to extend the decree but has no authority to do so.

UPMC further has accused Shapiro of “political grandstanding” and siding with Highmark over the public interest.

Highmark spokesman Aaron Billger said it fully supports Shapiro’s efforts in the name of “preserving health care choice for all consumers.”

Shapiro said he took the latest legal action against UPMC after what his office described as two years of failed negotiations to reach an agreement.

He defends his right to intervene on behalf of public interest via his office’s charitable oversight role.

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.