[J-28A-2015, J-28B-2015 and J-28C-2015] [MO: Saylor , C.J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,** 

**Appellee**

**v.**

**JAMES EISEMAN, JR. AND THE PUBLIC**

**INTEREST LAW CENTER OF**
**PHILADELPHIA,**

**Appellants :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 45 EAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the Order of the**

**Commonwealth Court entered on 02/19/2014 at No. 1935 CD 2012 affirming**  **in part and reversing in part the**

**determination entered on 09/17/2012 of the Office of Open Records at No.** 

**AP2011-1098.**

**ARGUED: May 5, 2015**

**AETNA BETTER HEALTH, INC., HEALTH**  **PARTNERS OF PHILADELPHIA, INC.,**

**AND KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH**
**PLAN,**

**Appellees**

**v.**

**JAMES EISEMAN, JR., AND THE PUBLIC**

**INTEREST LAW CENTER OF**
**PHILADELPHIA,**

**Appellants :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 46 EAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the Order of the**

**Commonwealth Court entered 02/19/2014 at No. 1949 CD 2012 affirming in part and**  **reversing in part the determination entered on 09/17/2012 of the Office of Open** 

**Records at No. AP2011-1098.**

**ARGUED: May 5, 2015**

**UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. D/B/A** 

**UNITEDHEALTHCARE COMMUNITY**

**PLAN AND HEALTHAMERICA**

**PENNSYLVANIA INC. D/B/A COVENTRYCARES,**  **:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 47 EAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the Order of the**

**Commonwealth Court entered 02/19/2014 at No. 1950 CD 2012 affirming in part and**  **reversing in part the determination entered on 09/17/2012 of the Office of Open** **[J-28A-2015, J-28B-2015 and J-28C-2015] [MO: Saylor, C .J.] - 2** 

**Appellees**

**v.**

**JAMES EISEMAN, JR. AND THE PUBLIC**

**INTEREST LAW CENTER OF**
**PHILADELPHIA,**

**Appellants :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: Records at No. AP2011-1098.** 

**ARGUED: May 5, 2015**

DISSENTING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: October 27, 2015

**I agree with the Commonwealth Court’s majority that documents containing MCO** 

**Rates are not “financial records” within § 102 of the R TKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102. See Dep’t** 

**of Public Welfare v. Eiseman, 85 A.3d 1117, 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (en banc)** 

**(“Because MCO Rates are not disbursed ‘by an agency,’ [ the] OOR erred in concluding** 

**MCO Rates are ‘financial records.’”). MCO Rates are rat es set by a private company,** 

**not an agency. The private company disburses the funds — the agency does not.** 

**While the entire scheme of payment immediately suggest s bureaucratic confusion and** 

**obfuscation, the plain language of the RTKL does not cover this situation — perhaps it** 

**should, but as it currently exists, in my judgment it do es not.** 

**I would remand the matter to the OOR to decide, in t he first instance, whether the** 

**MCO Rates are exempt from disclosure under § 708(b)(1 1). Contra id. (“Because we** 

**conclude the MCO Rates are not ‘financial records,’ we n ext consider the RTKL** 

**exceptions that OOR did not fully analyze based on its adherence to Lukes[ v. Dep’t of** 

**Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)]. T ypically, we would remand to [the]** 

**OOR to serve as fact-finder.”). Thus, I respectfully di ssent.**