Court Opinion

ID: 9940935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 17:19:59.127731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:03.610004
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                 Filed 01/17 24
                                                                                               Washington nit

 SUPERIOR COURT                                                          CIVIL DIVISION
 Washington Unit                                                    Case No. 23-CV-04063
 65 State Street
 Montpelier VT 05602
 802-828-2091                                        £17

 WWW.Vermontjudiciary.org

                     Vermont Attorney General’s Ofﬁce V. OneCare Vermont

                       O inion and Order on the GMCB’S Motion to Enforce

        In this case, Petitioner Vermont Attorney General’s Ofﬁce, on behalf of the Green

Mountain Care Board (GMCB), seeks to enforce an administrative subpoena that the

GMCB issued to Respondent OneCare Vermont compelling the production of certain

documents related to benchmarking data and related information used by OneCare to set

certain employee salaries and bonuses. See 3 V.S.A. § 809a (subpoena enforcement).

OneCare has produced some responsive information but has refused to produce the more

granular information currently at issue, which addresses the “how and Why” certain

salaries and incentives are set rather than their absolute amounts.

        Section 809a provides: “In a proceeding to enforce a subpoena, if the petitioner

establishes that the subpoena was properly issued, and that the person subpoenaed has

failed to appear or to produce documents or things required, the court shall issue an

order compelling compliance with the agency subpoena. Otherwise, the court shall

vacate or modify the subpoena.” 3 V.S.A. § 809a(d). “[S]ubpoenas will be upheld if

within the agency’s authority, ‘not too indefinite,’ and reasonably relevant.” State v.

Terry ’s Tips, Inc., No. 560-9-05 Wncv, 2005 WL 5895258 (Vt. Super. Nov. 15, 2005)

(quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950)).

Order                                                                      Page 1 of 5
23—CV-04063 Vermont Attorney General's Ofﬁce v. OneCare Vermont
        OneCare has argued, both in opposition to the GMCB’s motion to enforce and in

support of its own motion to stay, that the requested material is irrelevant to any lawful

regulatory authority of the GMCB and that enforcement should be denied on that basis.

It also has asserted that some of the records sought by the GMCB are subject to

confidentiality provisions in contracts that OneCare has with third parties, ostensibly

limiting its ability to produce some responsive material.

        Essentially, OneCare’s relevance argument is that the records sought by the

GMCB are relevant only if it possesses the regulatory power to control directly the

salaries of specific OneCare employees and that the GMCB lacks such authority. The

Court implicitly rejected that argument at length in its December 22, 2023, Opinion and

Order denying OneCare’s Motion to Stay. There, the Court explained that the GMCB

has “broad discretion to review OneCare finances, expenditures, wages, administrative

costs, etc., in support of its larger regulatory duties.” The Court could not conclude that

the GMCB’s broad right of access to information is co-extensive with any disputed

authority to set salaries.

        The Court now makes express what was strongly implied in the December 22

decision. Regardless of the GMCB’s authority to set salaries, the Court is persuaded that

the information it has sought from OneCare is relevant to its more general regulatory

authorities, all as described in greater detail in the December 22 decision. In sum, the

GMCB is charged with “reviewing, modifying, and approving the budgets of ACOs,” such

as OneCare. In doing so, it “shall review and consider,” “the character, competence, fiscal

responsibility, and soundness of the ACO and its principals,” 18 V.S.A. § 9382(b)(1)(D), as

well as “information on the ACO’s administrative costs, as defined by the GMCB,” id. §

Order                                                                      Page 2 of 5
23-CV-04063 Vermont Attorney General's Office v. OneCare Vermont
9382(b)(1)(M). The GMCB is charged with executing such “duties consistent with the

principles expressed” in 18 V.S.A. § 9371. Id. § 9375(a). Those principles include

making Vermont’s “health care system . . . transparent in design, efficient in operation,

and accountable to the people,” id. § 9371(3); evaluating it “for improvements in access,

quality, and cost containment,” id. § 9371(9); establishing “mechanisms for containing all

system costs and eliminating unnecessary expenditures, including by reducing

administrative costs and by reducing costs that do not contribute to efficient, high-

quality health services or improve health outcomes,” id. § 9371(10); and ensuring that

health care financing is “sufficient, fair, predictable, transparent, sustainable, and

shared equitably,” id. § 9371(11).

        In the Court’s view, GMCB “plainly” has authority to review OneCare’s financial

records, including “wage and salary data,” Vermont State Auditor v. OneCare

Accountable Care Org., LLC, 2022 VT 29, ¶ 22, 216 Vt. 478, 489, to allow it to fulfill its

oversight mission in the above areas.

        The thrust of OneCare’s contrary argument is that the GMCB’s access to

information should be limited in some manner so that, while it can have access to

OneCare’s records regarding wages and salaries on a macro level, it should be prevented

from looking into those matters in depth. The Court sees no such express limitation in

the statutes or rules, and certainly no such limitation can be implied in Vermont State

Auditor. Obtaining the more granular salary benchmarking and incentive information

sought by the subpoena is in keeping with and furthers the GMCB’s expansive oversight

responsibilities under the ACO regulatory scheme.

Order                                                                      Page 3 of 5
23-CV-04063 Vermont Attorney General's Office v. OneCare Vermont
        OneCare also argues that Judge Teachout’s decision in Expedia, Inc. counsels in

favor of quashing the subpoena in this case. The Court disagrees. In that case, the

Department of Taxes had been auditing Expedia in relation to its rooms and meals tax

liability. The matters in dispute were whether Expedia had liability as an “operator,”

and, if so, what were the taxable transactions. The Department could not explain what

purpose the information it sought via subpoena would serve in the context of the

litigation, and the Court could not “identify any fact or issue in controversy between the

parties for which the discovery sought by the State might be relevant.” Expedia, Inc. v.

Dep’t of Taxes, No. 119-2-18 WNCV, 2018 WL 11358600, at *2 (Vt. Super. May 07, 2018).

In short, the Department of Taxes and Expedia were embroiled in concrete adversarial

litigation over Expedia’s tax liability, yet the Department was demanding information

that had nothing to do with that controversy. The Court quashed the subpoena.

        This case is very different. Here, the GMCB is exercising broad regulatory

oversight of a pervasively regulated entity to ensure that its operation and function are

consistent with aspirational statutory policies enacted in the public interest. The Court

has identified above and in its earlier ruling the expansive scope of the matters GMCB is

required to consider in executing those supervisory functions. The information sought is

relevant to those pursuits.

        Accordingly, the GMCB’s motion is granted as to any responsive material that is

not clearly subject to an express confidentiality agreement that OneCare may have with

a third party.

Order                                                                     Page 4 of 5
23-CV-04063 Vermont Attorney General's Office v. OneCare Vermont
        As to the alleged confidentiality agreements, the GMCB has not disputed the

applicability of any such agreements vis-à-vis subpoena enforcement.1 Instead, it has

suggested that it is willing to agree to preserve the confidentiality of any such

information, either with OneCare or the third parties, and to seek the third parties’

assent to production, which it anticipates obtaining. As to any responsive confidential

documents, the GMCB’s motion is granted to that extent.

                                                  Conclusion

        For the foregoing reasons, the GMCB’s motion to enforce is granted as follows:

      (a) OneCare shall promptly produce all responsive documents that are not clearly
subject to an express confidentiality agreement that OneCare has with a third party.

       (b) As to any confidential materials, without delay the parties shall confer in good
faith and, as necessary, make reasonable efforts to obtain assent from third parties for
production to OneCare subject to a stipulated protective order. When assent is obtained
or determined to be unnecessary, relevant responsive material shall be produced
promptly.

       (c) If any responsive confidential material has not been produced within 45 days,
the GMCB may file, within 30 days thereafter, a new motion to enforce addressed to
those circumstances.

        Electronically signed on Tuesday, January 16, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

                                                         _______________________
                                                         Timothy B. Tomasi
                                                         Superior Court Judge

1 The alleged confidentiality agreements are not in the record.The Court takes no
position on whether they could properly operate to limit the GMCB’s access to
information within their scope.
Order                                                                              Page 5 of 5
23-CV-04063 Vermont Attorney General's Office v. OneCare Vermont