Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ld2196 Confidentiality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions confidentiality scheme for hospital data in health‑care rate‑cap bill; moves that exception does not meet FOA criteria
Summary
Lawmakers reviewed LD2196, a bill that would cap facility payments and require the Office of Affordable Health Care to audit compliance using proprietary hospital data. The committee concluded the proposed public‑records exception lacked a clear process for designating proprietary material and voted that it "does not meet" Title 1 §434 criteria, recommending statutory designation procedures be adopted.
The Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary reviewed LD2196 on July 7, a bill to cap facility payments for inpatient and outpatient services and to give Maine's Office of Affordable Health Care authority to audit hospitals for compliance. Committee members concentrated on the bill's proposed public‑records exception to protect proprietary hospital information submitted for audits.
Janet (HHS committee staff) explained that the bill would permit the office to request proprietary information from hospitals to determine whether contracted rates or insurer payments exceeded caps; the information would remain confidential under the proposed exception while the office would publish an annual implementation report without proprietary detail. "Any proprietary information that's requested by the office would remain confidential," Janet told the committee.
Members examined statutory models for how a submitting entity designates proprietary information. Staff presented two commonly used schemes: a product‑stewardship model (Title 38 rubric) in which a submitter marks material and has a 15‑day window to prove proprietary status, and a simpler model (Title 5 / Maine Space Corporation approach) in which the submitter marks material and the agency makes the final determination. Hospitals indicated they would be willing to mark materials as proprietary under either approach.
Several members expressed concern that without a clear statutory designation process the exception could be overbroad or inconsistently applied. Representative Lee moved "that the proposed public records exception does not meet the criteria listed in Title 1 §434" and recommended the committee of jurisdiction adopt one of the existing statutory schemes for proprietary designation; another member seconded. The committee approved the motion by unanimous show of hands of those present.
Committee staff said they would return suggested drafting language (including options for designation/appeal procedures) to the Health and Human Services Committee and circulate edits by email for member review.
Outcome: Motion that the proposed public‑records exception in LD2196 does not meet Title 1 §434 criteria; committee recommended use of an established statutory scheme to handle proprietary designations.
