Delaware IC To Hold Secret Meeting Until Outed by the CRI
(Title stolen from the CRI twitter feed.)
I’ve spent most of the day driving home today, so I am trying to piece together the latest developments:
CRI puts up a blog post breaking what looks like news about a secret meeting that the IC is now having on the morning of 13 April. (13 April at 1 PM is when there is a Joint House and Senate committee meeting to discuss insurance issues.):
In an e-mail sent Monday evening to the members of the two committees, Stewart appears to be trying to preempt some of the questions she’ll likely face during the public hearings.
“On behalf of Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart, CIR-ML you are invited to attend a meeting regarding the processes utilized by health insurers that resulted in the denial of medically necessary tests requested by a patient’s physician,” Stewart’s administrative assistant Lorielee Harrison wrote in the e-mail. “The meeting will be held April 13th, 10:00 am at the Delaware Department of Insurance Office, 841 Silver Lake Blvd […]
Doctors and insurance company executives were going to “call in” to answer questions and concerns.
Lee Williams tried to RSVP for this meeting and got no response. He also tried to get KWS and Elliot Jacobson to address why these meetings were being held behind closed doors. No answer, of course. Until this:
A hastily posted Press Release opening this meeting to the public. Complete with a denial that this meeting was ever meant to be held behind closed doors.
Isn’t this interesting? After telling the NJ while she was in Denver that she would be amenable to investigating these denials of service if there was an established pattern, and after Senator Rockefeller (from West Virginia) wanted info from BCBSD, and after Byron Short schedules his hearing we get a public meeting from the IC on this. Remarkable how this works out.
But seems desperate and clumsy in a late effort to get in front of it all. And if I were members of the Senate or House Committees, I wouldn’t attend. You’ll see her that afternoon and why wrap yourselves up in the manipulation? If I were Byron Short, I’d conduct my own hearings and then call the insurance execs and medical people to provide additional information that you’ve determined you need. There is no need to walk right into whatever spin is on tap until you can deal with that spin on your own terms.
EDITED: To include the link to the CRI blog post cited — sorry this got missed. Also, the NJ has an article laying out a decent timeline of the current state of events.
According to the NJ this morning, Blevins said she is not going to KWS meeting.
Of course it wasn’t.
Word to the wise – send out the press release announcing your public meeting before sending out special invitations to attend. Just sayin’
OK, consider the other side of the coin.
You realize that the afternoon meeting will be consumed by the ‘extras’ CRI has forced out (not a bad thing) now Byron Short that has declared that he will also be inquiring about these extras next Tuesday.
You decide to schedule an additional meeting that day to accomodate people who were scheduled FOR THE ORIGINAL purpose of the meeting (BCBS and other insurers denying medical testing)
Do you invite the members of the committee via press release? I don’t think so. You send them a personal notice.
Some hot to trot legis forwards the memo to CRI (no doubt for the purpose of creating more GOPer scandal-mongering).
CRI, –in possession of the GA memo sent out in the evening of 6th for a meeting on the 13th– can’t wait past 11AM the following morning for an RSVP response called in on voicemail….for a meeting a week away….? Elliott is a bumbling idiot for not producing the presser in conjunction with the memo because he should have know that all the forces against his boss would be perched to scoop and dive in for the kill. But to claim that this was a secret meeting, as Cassandra has done, is LAME and corrupt. Shame on you. Shame on this blog.
Quesiton –why are the Dellies are so anxious to play footsie with the Republican propaganda arm and publish their lies. hmmmmmmm.
Now Cass presumes to tell Byron how to run his business? On the basis of the GOP’s scandal-mongering? YEAH RIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
Geez, you guys have me feelin’ sorry for her now. Can’t the woman do a briefing w/ key folks to target answers their respective constituency may be asking them–instead of a roomful of miscellaneous people who may digress, and hold her up on one sacroiliac question?
Also, wouldn’t it be nice to know if a certain date was not good for a majority of state folks who just may need or want to be there?
Just asking.
1. Shut up Nancy. No one wants to hear your b.s.
2. Great job, Cassandra Thanks.
Blevins said she finds the request for the KWS meeting “puzzling.” That’s being kind.
http://criblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/senate-insurance-committee-chair-puzzled-by-insurance-commissioners-pre-meeting-wont-attend/
First – it is Bryon Short.
Second – Why in the world would you want to have KWS answering questions when she isn’t under oath? Isn’t that one of the advantages of a hearing? Would any of the people on the phone, whose identity one would have to take at their word, be sworn in? Doubt it.
No, if she is being asked to appear before a committee, it should be open, under oath, and focused. I hope that the committee doesn’t get in the weeds too much and follows a reasonable line of questioning.
Nancy – you need to give Delusional David back his crack pipe.
Nancy, you sound like KWS’ mouthpiece here. Why would she hold a meeting with legislators 3 hours before holding a meeting with legislators? This was an attempt to coordinate stories and set the talking points.
I think DL is not playing footsie with the GOP scare machine. What anyone can see here, regardless of political leaning, is that our insurance commissioner is an idiot. Why did she wait until the feds launched an investigation of BCBS for denying tests instead of taking the lead? Why did she authorize those contracts?
You want to do a briefing with key folks? Fine. Call a staff meeting. Start inviting outside parties and it becomes public.
The fact that KWS is a liar and not just an idiot has a much greater impact here. KWS’s assertion that she requested the meeting at Leg Hall is just one example. Bryon Short asked for and scheduled it when all the controversy started. At that point she didn’t have a clue. All this is frantic damage control that has Elliott Jacobson’s grubby signature all over it.
“Can’t the woman do a briefing w/ key folks to target answers their respective constituency may be asking them”
Sure she can. And she can deal with the fallout, too. By the way, this process is one of the more popular points under The Delaware Way. Screw the people, talk to the important asses in the GA.
“instead of a roomful of miscellaneous people who may digress, and hold her up on one sacroiliac question”
If she were smart, that’s exactly what she would find an ally to do — bog down the inquiry in unimportant details. If she fails to do that, it means she’s either not smart enough to do that, or she has no allies in the General Assembly. My guess is the latter.
That’s a point I’m not clear on: who called for the meetings? I thought it was Short, but even the NJ article states clearly that she asked for it.
Is this just poor reporting (from the NJ, I’m shocked!) or are they getting sucked into her spin?
Again, Short requested the meeting. NJ just took on the KWS version because they always print verbatim whatever Jacobson sends them. Just think about it: How likely is it that KWS would voluntarily expose herself to being questioned by the legislators under oath?
You realize that the afternoon meeting will be consumed by the ‘extras’ CRI has forced out (not a bad thing) now Byron Short that has declared that he will also be inquiring about these extras next Tuesday.
As far as I can tell, no one has a real agenda for what Rep. Short intends to accomplish on the 13th. Apparently he has two broad areas of inquiry, but more to the point — why wouldn’t Mr. Short get to talk with these insurance execs and medical people that have been invited to the GA Hearing. Unless, the only person inviting them for the afternoon meeting is KWS.
You see where I’m going with this, right? This is just about trying to pre-empt the Short hearing, not to cooperate with it. If she had been interested in this subject (and don’t forget she told the NJ reporter that she would investigate issues with BCBSD is there was a pattern of problems) this meeting would have been done and gone before the NJ got their hands on this story. And now this fairly inept attempt to get some control over the narrative is now the story.
Patty Blevins has exactly the right attitude here — puzzling is the diplomatic assessment — and there is no reason for any Rep or Senator to be a part of the opening act when they should be working on making sure that the main event gets the necessary information and data.
Scott P — I don’t think it is entirely clear on who actually called the meeting. The NJ reported last Friday or Saturday that Rep Short called the hearing. Then the Ron Williams’ *column* was where I first saw KWS claim that she was the one who asked for the hearings.
Who knows.
Bryon Short does.
Yes, he does, and he’s currently on vacation, well-deserved. When he gets back I hope he’ll issue any statement he feels is germane.
We should remember that the BCBS denial of coverage isn’t all Rep. Short wants to talk about. He also wants to discuss that “captive” outfit she created that gets $50K+ per month. Going by the CRI report, it seems to be some kind of front since no one appears to be working there. The DOI website had an RFP up for a videographer to film a commercial for that outfit with Stewart and supposedly Markell. As soon as the CRI report broke, it was taken down. Coincidence?
Nobody should forget that CRI is a rightwing partisan operation.
Yes, of course. They’re persecuting Stewart because she’s a Democrat. Right.
They are a right wing partisan organization. And have said previously that if this IC had an R behind her name, this investigation would not have happened. But so far, they’ve been on target with this one so credit where credit is due.
Cass – your syntax is a little off. Let’s make clear that Del Lib and not CRI said this wouldn’t have happened if the IC had an R behind her name. Not to mention that such a scenario is unlikely. You always call for proof of assertions. Let’s see some evidence where CRI failed to pursue an issue because the main player was Republican.
Don’t be ridiculous. CRI will disprove the allegation the day it goes after a Republican. I don’t doubt it will someday — those upstate Republicans are the ones who introduced the indoor smoking ban, for example — when an upstate Republican does something insufficiently conservative. Until then, the charge stands.
Furthermore, your reaction pretty much proves it’s true.
Let’s see some evidence where CRI failed to pursue an issue because the main player was Republican.
GOP House spending abuses (wow, fastest linkrot ever from News Journal; that was just a few weeks ago).
Thank you anon.
They were remarkably silent on the GOP House spending abuses.
Typical. Attack and detract. You people would be way better off to stay on topic since this situation goes far beyond spending abuses. Matter of fact, had you all not looked at the early warnings as mere conjecture, which you’ve since learned the hard way they weren’t, this wouldn’t be happening in the first place. Whoever said that people get the kind of government they deserve was right.
Typical. Demand evidence and then get huffy when you get some.
Talk about your attack and detract.
Seriously. This topic doesn’t even equal spending abuses, which involve tax funds. This doesn’t.
It involves many millions of dollars that would go to the state if they weren’t being self-servingly spent by this worthless IC, in abuse of her office and in violation of the oath she took to serve the people of Delaware. So what’s the difference between that and “tax funds”? None. Your ignorance and attitude are why so many corrupt politicians are able to flourish in Delaware.
“So what’s the difference between that and “tax funds”? None.”
Wrong again. The money comes from insurance companies (actually companies that self-insure), not individuals. Spin that however you want, there is no law stating that she should minimize the office’s expenses in order to add money to the general fund, and nothing that says any revenue gained that way would be used to offset tax revenue.
And the allegations that you state as fact are far from proved. What’s the matter, you don’t believe in the American justice system? Or do you believe that if a conservative organization makes an allegation, it’s automatically true?
As for my corruption-fighting bona fides, they are longer and deeper than yours are or ever could be.
The style of the writer behind the Geezer moniker is unmistakable. Too bad it’s against DL rules to out him or else it would be clear that he has much to gain from his line of argument. Delaware law limits DOI spending to a certain percentage of revenue. Anything above that is money out of the state’s and the taxpayers’ pockets. Whether that money comes from corporations or individuals is immaterial. So shut up Geezer, and be sure you know what you’re talking about before you spout off.
The first rule of economics: Money is fungible.
It would be a useful effort for someone to untangle the money pathways at the IC office.
Nonetheless, the fact that some IC operations are funded by industry money rather than taxpayer money is a red herring.
The issue is the undue influence of the money – i.e., public corruption. Accountability for how much money is spent, and on what, does not go away.
If the law provides loopholes for oversight of industry money in the IC office, then the law needs to be changed.
What, precisely, do I have to gain from my line of argument? I have absolutely no dog in this fight. I am not connected to KWS or any of the others who have tried to gain this office or have previously held this office. I am registered Democrat. I have no faith in KWS’ ability to hold this job.
You’re the one who ought to be sure of what you’re talking about. YOu made, as assertions of fact, statements that are far from proven. You’re the one with the ax to grind. Sorry that pointing out your shortcomings somehow strikes you as defense of KWS. It’s not; it’s an attack on your weak arguments.
I just wanted to expand on this comment:
If the law provides loopholes for oversight of industry money in the IC office, then the law needs to be changed.
See, the issue isn’t KWS or her competence or her choice of friends. The issue isn’t even Democrats or Republicans. The issue is the law, and the lack of oversight.
If the law contains loopholes that legally permit corrupt behavior, then the next Republican or Democrat will walk through those loopholes. I think we got lucky with Matt Denn.
And the law governing the IC office is complex and odd. Starting with the end-run around accountability by funding with direct industry money, bypassing the usual state controls (even the auditor’s office, unless I am mistaken). And the end run around standard competitive bidding rules for RFPs.
The law is set up to allow cronyism from either party. It is even cleverly designed to resist attempts to change it – did you know that some of that industry money that flows through the IC office is siphoned off to fund police pensions?
The issue should be “Insurance Office Reform” which I haven’t heard anybody talk about so far.
Anon: I’ll go futher and say that lawmakers should act now to change the state constitution so that this job is no longer an elected office. If the IC were appointed by a governor, any wrongdoing in the office would go straight to the top, which is a much better safeguard than hoping voters will suddenly learn what an IC is supposed to do and vote accordingly.
change the state constitution so that this job is no longer an elected office.
I don’t think that matters so much as fixing the oversight. The IC needs to follow the law whether elected or appointed. Appointees can be political cronies too.
I predict the KWS hearings will not find any violation of law, which will in fact expose the weaknesses in the law.
Oh, they will try to grandstand and milk some partisan embarrassment out of it, but ultimately the legislature will let the issue die rather than introduce reforms.
I agree with Geezer in this — it seems well past time that this job is professionalized and made accountable (for the money and for the professional function of the office) in a much more straightforward way. Insurance is complex and it is going to get more complex. And since the ACA calls for states to set up Health Insurance Exchanges, we will want to have someone who knows what they are doing and who is clearly accountable to someone getting this started up and running. We can’t afford feelng our way here or getting it wrong.
And this is what makes CRI a partisan outfit: The focus was on personal embarrassment of KWS and Democrats, with no effort to research or explain the weaknesses in the law which encouraged or permitted their behavior. Lee sounds pretty fuzzy when he tried to explain how KWS was spending taxpayer money, and leftover industry money had to go to the General Fund. I don’t think ferreting out the nuances of the law was in Lee’s research budget.
Perhaps his sponsors want to preserve the loopholes for a Republican IC.
Actually, CRI sponsors probably wrote those loopholes KWS is exploiting – how embarrassing. Now there’s an investigation worth doing.
I agree anon, I don’t think appointing rather than electing an IC will necessarily lead to a better one. Elected officials select a lot of clowns for appointed positions. Yes, I think the rules governing the office and oversight need to be tightened because they don’t seem adequate right now.
Yes, appointees can be political cronies — in which case the governor goes down with the IC. As I said, that seems a better watchdog situation than hoping someone will uncover the wrongdoing. What happens next time, when the malefactor might be Republican? No CRI investigation when that happens.