"COUNTDOWN TO A FLIP-FLOP" #5
This is the fifth installment of a "Countdown To a Flip-Flop," a special 10 day event exposing the lengthy record of Mike Hatch in the run up to what promises to be his third failed gubernatorial run.
From The Archives: A Look Back At Hatch's Devastating Defeat in the Medica Case
Judge ends Medica suit by Hatch
Accusations against the board were "without merit.''
A Hennepin County judge ended Attorney General Mike Hatch's lawsuit against Medica with a sharply worded opinion Thursday, saying that Hatch's accusations of self-dealing by Medica board members were "unproven and without merit."
For Hatch, the decision brings a disappointing end to four years of battles with Medica and provides ammunition to those who are lining up to oppose what many expect will be a gubernatorial bid by the attorney general next year.
Hatch is widely credited with stepping in and blowing the whistle on lavish pay and perks at the nonprofit health care firm in 2001, a role Judge Lloyd Zimmerman praised in his decision. In recent years, however, Hatch has come under criticism for continuing to levy attacks at the revamped Medica board in what some saw as an ongoing power grab.
In his ruling, Zimmerman seemed to reflect both views of Hatch's conduct.
"The attorney general's intervention in 2001 was government at its best - protecting the public from corruption, waste and abuse," the judge wrote. But Hatch's latest lawsuit, the judge said, featured "overheated rhetoric and accusations of self-dealing, deception and hijacking."
The case "is about whether Medica's board acted honorably or illegally in taking Medica from a national scandal in 2001 to the position of being named the No. 1 nonprofit health plan in the country. At the end of the day, good people were unfairly accused. After a fair and impartial trial, their good name is restored to them," Zimmerman wrote.
"I accept, but am very disappointed with, Judge Zimmerman's decision," Hatch said.
In essence, Hatch had been claiming that he still retained control over Medica's board. He had appointed eight of its 14 members in 2001 after the health insurer was split from heath care provider Allina. The split was the result of an investigation by Hatch's office that uncovered financial irregularities, including excessive travel, entertainment and consulting fees. Now Hatch had wanted his six remaining appointees removed, claiming that three members had improperly been provided with Medica insurance coverage in order to comply with a state law that requires that 40 percent of the board members be policyholders.
Hatch said he still maintains that the Medica board improperly formed a holding company.
"I do not believe that court administrators or state administrators, regardless of how `blue ribbon' they are, should take control of a board of a nonprofit company by falsely claiming to be members of the nonprofit company when, in fact, they are not," he said.
Hatch had also argued that the Medica board members were overpaid, but Zimmerman said the pay - $25,000 per year plus $1,000 per meeting, with more for the chairman - was at the low end of the usual range for such service.
Medica had argued that the obligations of its board to Hatch ended in 2002 with the adoption of new corporate bylaws and an official election.
'Legal metaphysics'
In his ruling, Zimmerman said "there is nothing to show that Medica did anything improper in running its consumer board members for election." He also said that issuing health care policies to three board members who previously were not Medica customers so that they could meet the state law concerning board membership was consistent with past practices.
Hatch argued that the appointed board members also were acting as court administrators and should have fixed the mess, then left, not run for election. He described it as a "hijacking" of the company.
Zimmerman wrote in his ruling that he felt the argument was "legal metaphysics," adding that "the state is not accusing Medica board members of doing a bad job, or of excessive pay, or other misdeeds," but then makes the allegations against the same people in their capacity as court administrators.
He said that under either title, "they violated no law, no order, no bylaw, no ethical precept."
Medica board chairman John Buck, who also served as unpaid interim CEO for 15 months, didn't criticize Hatch in responding to news of the ruling. Despite the "distractions of this legal case, we have made tremendous strides over the past four years," Buck said.
Medica membership has grown from 800,000 to 1.3 million since 2001.
Republicans weren't as circumspect in their reaction to the ruling.
In a statement, party chair Ron Carey said the ruling "proves that Mike Hatch puts political grandstanding ahead of public policy. Hatch's bullying behavior and temperament in this case raises questions about whether he is fit for higher office."
Watchdog needed
Hatch, who has not said whether he will run for governor, responded by asking what the Pawlenty administration has done to prompt health care access.
Republicans "would serve themselves well if they served as a watchdog for public health," Hatch said. "I haven't seen this administration do anything constructively when it comes to our health care system. The only thing I've seen them do is try to throw another 36,000 people off Minnesota Care."
Other health care firms and nonprofits watched this case with interest.
Jon Pratt, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, said the council filed a friend of the court brief taking Medica's side.
"The Council of Nonprofits hoped it would come out this way," Pratt said, saying that the council wanted "the right of nonprofits to name and appoint their own board members" upheld.
For Hatch, who credits his focus on health care with winning him the attorney general's office, his suit against Medica has been at the center of an ongoing campaign that has largely succeeded in reforming some health care practices and expanding patient access.
The attorney general has pursued a number of other high-profile investigations and lawsuits. For example, he won concessions from U.S. Bancorp about the sharing of customer information and from Xcel Energy to better monitor interruptions in electrical service.
But health care has been much more the centerpiece of his activity.
Beyond Medica, he has taken on Blue Cross and Blue Shield over allegations that it refused to pay for mental health care for children, winning expanded coverage. He also has taken on Fairview Medical on the grounds that it provided inadequate levels of charity care, also winning promises of improved access for the poor.
"Hatch should be given credit for having made major changes in the health care industry in the state, there's no question," Fairview CEO David Page told MPR recently. Source: Star Tribune, August 19, 2005
From The Archives: A Look Back At Hatch's Devastating Defeat in the Medica Case
Judge ends Medica suit by Hatch
Accusations against the board were "without merit.''
A Hennepin County judge ended Attorney General Mike Hatch's lawsuit against Medica with a sharply worded opinion Thursday, saying that Hatch's accusations of self-dealing by Medica board members were "unproven and without merit."
For Hatch, the decision brings a disappointing end to four years of battles with Medica and provides ammunition to those who are lining up to oppose what many expect will be a gubernatorial bid by the attorney general next year.
Hatch is widely credited with stepping in and blowing the whistle on lavish pay and perks at the nonprofit health care firm in 2001, a role Judge Lloyd Zimmerman praised in his decision. In recent years, however, Hatch has come under criticism for continuing to levy attacks at the revamped Medica board in what some saw as an ongoing power grab.
In his ruling, Zimmerman seemed to reflect both views of Hatch's conduct.
"The attorney general's intervention in 2001 was government at its best - protecting the public from corruption, waste and abuse," the judge wrote. But Hatch's latest lawsuit, the judge said, featured "overheated rhetoric and accusations of self-dealing, deception and hijacking."
The case "is about whether Medica's board acted honorably or illegally in taking Medica from a national scandal in 2001 to the position of being named the No. 1 nonprofit health plan in the country. At the end of the day, good people were unfairly accused. After a fair and impartial trial, their good name is restored to them," Zimmerman wrote.
"I accept, but am very disappointed with, Judge Zimmerman's decision," Hatch said.
In essence, Hatch had been claiming that he still retained control over Medica's board. He had appointed eight of its 14 members in 2001 after the health insurer was split from heath care provider Allina. The split was the result of an investigation by Hatch's office that uncovered financial irregularities, including excessive travel, entertainment and consulting fees. Now Hatch had wanted his six remaining appointees removed, claiming that three members had improperly been provided with Medica insurance coverage in order to comply with a state law that requires that 40 percent of the board members be policyholders.
Hatch said he still maintains that the Medica board improperly formed a holding company.
"I do not believe that court administrators or state administrators, regardless of how `blue ribbon' they are, should take control of a board of a nonprofit company by falsely claiming to be members of the nonprofit company when, in fact, they are not," he said.
Hatch had also argued that the Medica board members were overpaid, but Zimmerman said the pay - $25,000 per year plus $1,000 per meeting, with more for the chairman - was at the low end of the usual range for such service.
Medica had argued that the obligations of its board to Hatch ended in 2002 with the adoption of new corporate bylaws and an official election.
'Legal metaphysics'
In his ruling, Zimmerman said "there is nothing to show that Medica did anything improper in running its consumer board members for election." He also said that issuing health care policies to three board members who previously were not Medica customers so that they could meet the state law concerning board membership was consistent with past practices.
Hatch argued that the appointed board members also were acting as court administrators and should have fixed the mess, then left, not run for election. He described it as a "hijacking" of the company.
Zimmerman wrote in his ruling that he felt the argument was "legal metaphysics," adding that "the state is not accusing Medica board members of doing a bad job, or of excessive pay, or other misdeeds," but then makes the allegations against the same people in their capacity as court administrators.
He said that under either title, "they violated no law, no order, no bylaw, no ethical precept."
Medica board chairman John Buck, who also served as unpaid interim CEO for 15 months, didn't criticize Hatch in responding to news of the ruling. Despite the "distractions of this legal case, we have made tremendous strides over the past four years," Buck said.
Medica membership has grown from 800,000 to 1.3 million since 2001.
Republicans weren't as circumspect in their reaction to the ruling.
In a statement, party chair Ron Carey said the ruling "proves that Mike Hatch puts political grandstanding ahead of public policy. Hatch's bullying behavior and temperament in this case raises questions about whether he is fit for higher office."
Watchdog needed
Hatch, who has not said whether he will run for governor, responded by asking what the Pawlenty administration has done to prompt health care access.
Republicans "would serve themselves well if they served as a watchdog for public health," Hatch said. "I haven't seen this administration do anything constructively when it comes to our health care system. The only thing I've seen them do is try to throw another 36,000 people off Minnesota Care."
Other health care firms and nonprofits watched this case with interest.
Jon Pratt, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, said the council filed a friend of the court brief taking Medica's side.
"The Council of Nonprofits hoped it would come out this way," Pratt said, saying that the council wanted "the right of nonprofits to name and appoint their own board members" upheld.
For Hatch, who credits his focus on health care with winning him the attorney general's office, his suit against Medica has been at the center of an ongoing campaign that has largely succeeded in reforming some health care practices and expanding patient access.
The attorney general has pursued a number of other high-profile investigations and lawsuits. For example, he won concessions from U.S. Bancorp about the sharing of customer information and from Xcel Energy to better monitor interruptions in electrical service.
But health care has been much more the centerpiece of his activity.
Beyond Medica, he has taken on Blue Cross and Blue Shield over allegations that it refused to pay for mental health care for children, winning expanded coverage. He also has taken on Fairview Medical on the grounds that it provided inadequate levels of charity care, also winning promises of improved access for the poor.
"Hatch should be given credit for having made major changes in the health care industry in the state, there's no question," Fairview CEO David Page told MPR recently. Source: Star Tribune, August 19, 2005
1 Comments:
Don't forget, Hatch called Marianne Short a "bleeping bleep."
Post a Comment
<< Home