The letter requested a written response. A broad reading of your powers under these sections would entitle you and the public to these records. However, it is clear from the HMO industry's retrenched response to the petition that it would have fought you in court every step of the way should you have taken such an action. I have no choice but to respect, reluctantly, your narrow reading of the statute , with one proviso, that you join me in sponsoring legislation to remedy the underlying problem. The problems associated with the process are well known, and made even clearer by a recent California Research Bureau report.
Arbitrators often depend on repeat business from HMOs and are more likely to rule in their favor.
There is no jury of one's peers, publicly accountable judge or media scrutiny. There is judicial review only in cases of outright fraud, not judicial error. In other words, voluntary arbitration makes good sense, forced arbitration in the HMO context, where health and life can be at stake, is unfair. The perils of the HMOs' private justice system are exacerbated when secrecy shields from public view HMO quality of care violations uncovered in binding arbitration. This fundamental public interest in disclosure is why the state Judicial Council has made it more difficult to hush plaintiffs in civil lawsuits who settle their cases.