A Fulton County judge Wednesday rejected UnitedHealthcare’s request for an injunction to halt the implementation of a lucrative contract for the state employee health plan.
Attorneys for United argued that the Department of Community Health’s award of a State Health Benefit Plan (SHBP) contract to a rival company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, amounted to “state-sponsored bid-rigging.’’
Superior Court Judge Kimberly Adams declined to intervene, accepting the state’s argument that United has not yet exhausted its appeals with Community Health officials as it seeks to overturn the deal.
The multibillion-dollar contract covers medical services for more than 650,000 state employees, schoolteachers, other school personnel, retirees and dependents.
United, which covers most of the policyholders under the current SHBP contract, has mounted a strong attack against Community Health’s actions, saying the department has not produced all relevant documents under the Open Records Act and conducted a “secret’’ bid for a regional contract.
Timing is crucial to both sides in the bitterly contested case. The state aims to start open enrollment for employees Oct. 21.
United’s attorneys argued that the bid process has been contaminated, and that the current setup should be extended until the legal issues have been sorted out.
With WellPoint being Blue Cross’ parent company, the dispute also involves the two largest health insurers in the United States.
Randy Evans of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, representing United, argued that the state created “a secret bid system’’ for a regional insurer in which “only one bidder was invited.’’
He noted that Community Health’s new commissioner, Clyde Reese, has declared that the process to hire a metro Atlanta insurer for an HMO was “not properly inclusive’’ and has decided to rebid the contract.
Added Bill Jordan of Alston & Bird, also representing United: “This is a mess that was simply rigged from the start.’’
via Judge refuses to halt state health contract | Georgia Health News.








Comments ( 0 )