2-0v-15-5380 Filed in Second Judilal Distt Court ‘9812015 1021'35.AM Ramsey Couniy, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA. DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL South Country Health Alliance, Civil File No.: Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. ‘Minnesota Department of Human Services; and Lucinda EB. Jesson in her capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendants. Plaintiff South Country Health Alliance (*SCHA” or “Plaintiff”) states and alleges as follows: SUMMARY AND NATURE OF ACTION 1. South Country Health Alliance (“SCHA") was established by a group of rural Minnesota counties to provide their own health care services on behalf of persons eligible for medical assistance. SCHA’s member counties are Brown County, Dodge County, Goodhue County, Kanabee County, Morrison County, Sibley County, Steele County, Todd County, Wadena County, Waseca County, and Wabasha County (hereafter “Member Counties”), 2. The Member Counties’ decision to provide health care services through SCHA is authorized expressly by Minn. Stat. § 256B.692, subd. 1 (“[G]roups of county boards may elect to purchase or provide health care services on behalf of persons eligible for medical assistance who would otherwise be required to or may elect to participate in the prepaid medical assistance program according to section 256B.69.") 4900092o2-0v-15-5360 Filed in Second Juda Distiet Court 19182015 10:21:38 AM Ramsey County, tN 3. DHS is required by Minn, Stat, § 256.692, subd. 4 to “pay counties that are purchasing or providing health care under this section a per capita payment for all enrolled recipients.” 4, On July 27, 2015, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“DHS”) informed SCHA that DHS intended to contract with private managed care organizations to provide health care services on behalf of persons eligible for medical assistance in ten of the ‘eleven Member Counties. DS's decision is contrary to Jaw, including Min Stat. § 256B.692. jon under 5. SCHA, acting on behalf of the Member Counties, has requested medi Minn, Stat. § 2568.69, subd. 3a, The mediation is scheduled for September 16, 2015 at 9:00 am. 6. To meaningfully participate in the mediation, SCHA needs access to the documents on which DHS relied when it made its procurement decision. ‘These documents include DHS’s “price-bid scoresheet,” documents showing the evaluations and scores submitted by the Member Counties to DHS, and other evaluative data, 7, On information and belief, DHS may believe the Minnesota Government Data Praetices Act prohibits disclosure of this data to SCHA without a court or administrative order. 8. DHS will be providing the data to the mediators, ‘This ereates a situation where DHS's representatives and the mediators will be able to discuss the rationale for DHS’s decision, but SCHA will be left to guess about the scoring and evaluations of its REP response. 9. SCHA has attempted to negotiate @ compromise with DHS that would allow SCHA to access the same data that will be available to the mediators. Specifically: a, On August 17, SCHA provided DHS with a confidentiality agreement and proposed protective order, containing a list of documents requested; 902092 2ee) Fed in Second Judicial Disviet Court 191812015 10:21:35.aM Ramsey County, MN b, On August 29, SCHA made a request under the MGDPA for data relating to DHS’s procurement decision, DHS verbally indicated that relevant responsive data was private or nonpublic, but DHS did not provide a specific statutory citation to the provision that would allow DHS to withhold this data; ©. Finally, SCHA submitted a proposed protective order to the mediation panel, which met for the first time on Friday, September 4. On Friday afternoon, the panel informed SCHA that it would not consider the request for a protective order becauise the mediators believed such an order was outside their jurisdiction 10. Therefore, SCHA brings this action, along with a motion for emergency relief, in order to obtain the data allowing SCHA to participate meaningfully in the mediation process on September 16 11, SCHA’s request for relief at this time is limited only to a request for an order permitting SCHA to obtain government data as soon as possible. ‘The mediation proceeding may resolve the parties’ dispute and avoid the need for further relief. JURISDICTION AND VE! 12, This Court has jurisdiction under Minn, Stat. § 484.01 13, Venue is proper in Ramsey County under Minn, Stat. § 542.01, § 542.03, and § 542.09, THE PARTIES 14, Plaintiff South Country Health Alliance is a joint-powers entity established by eleven Minnesota counties under Minn, Stat, § 256.692, SCHA has the authority to act on behalf of the Member Counties under the joint-powers agreement, as well as resolutions passed by each Member County expressly allowing SCHA to pursue all action necessary to protect the Member Counties’ ability to provide for health care services under Minn, Stat, § 256B.692. 4962602 3s2.cv-15-5309 Fed in Second Jud Diset Court 19182018 10:27:95 AM Ramsey County, MN 15. Defendant Department of Human Services is a department of the State of Minnesota formed and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. It is a government entity within the meaning of Minn. Stat, § 13.02, subd. 7a, and therefore is subject to the provisions of the MGDPA, 16, Defendant Lucinda B. Jesson is the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services. FACTS 17, In. 2001, SCHA was approved by DHS and Minnesota Department of Health as a county-based purchasing unit under Minn, Stat. § 256B.692. 18. Since that time, DHS has designated SCHA as the single-plan provider for medical assistance in nearly all of SCHA’s counties. 19, In 2015, despite approving the Member Counties’ request to provide health care mate in a new statewide procurement serviees through SCHA, DHS required SCHA to parti process for medical assistance and MinnesotaCare under Minn, Stat. § 256B.69, subd. 35. 20, On July 27, 2015, DHS informed SCHA that, as a result of the procurement ns 10 process, DHS intended to negotiate grant contracts with private managed care organizat provide services in ten of SCHA’s Member Counties, DHS would only negotiate a grant contract with SCHA to provide health services for individuals in Dodge County 21, Following the announcement, DHS told SCHA—and announced publicly—that, with respect to medical assistance, SCHA’s response to the RFP was not evaluated based on price. 496200 2 462.0V-15-5589 Flin Second Judicial Disct Court ‘182015 10:21:35 AM ‘Romeay County, MIN 22. Asauthorized by Minn. Stat. § 2568.69, subd. 3a, SCHA and each of its Member Counties requested mediation regarding DHS’s decision, ‘The mediation is scheduled for September 16, 2015 23, On August 29, 2015, SCHA submitted a data practices request to DHS for the following information; ‘+ All data reflecting or relating to the Commissioner of Human Services’ consideration of whether to contract on a single-health plan basis with SCHA. ‘+All data showing the criteria used by DHS to score or evaluate responses to the 2016 RFP, including but not limited to the price-bid score sheet reflecting DHS? evaluation or scoring of responses to the 2016 RFP. + All data relating to DHS? consideration of “program alignment” as a basis for evaluating responses to the 2016 RFP. This includes, but is not limited to, all documents defining the term “program alignment” and all documents referencing how each responder’s “program-alignment” seore was to be tabulated. + Copies of the written reports required by Minn. Stat § 2568.69, subd. 3a(h) from the Commissioner of Human Services to the Legislature's hhuman-services committee chairs, from January 1, 2011 forward, as well as all other data relating to the ereation or submission of the reports. 24. This data is presumptively public and, under Minn, Stat. § 13.01, subd. 3, must be provided to SCHA unless a specific federal law, state statute, or temporary classification makes the data not public. 25. On September 3, 2015, DHS responded to SCHA’s data practices request by producing a limited number of communications relating to the RFP process. DHS’s attorney indicated the documents were intended to be responsive to the request for data reflecting or relating to the Commissioner of Human Services’ consideration of whether to contract on a single-health plan basis, 962692 5s20v-15-5509 Filed n Second Jus Distt Court ‘/82015 10:21:35 AM Ramoy County, UN 26. At DHS’s request, SCHA’s attomeys and other individuals expected to be involved in the mediation process agreed to a confidentiality agreement drafted by DHS. 27. DHS’s attorneys have stated verbally that documents relating to the evaluative process — even documents created by the member counties — are non-public under the MGDPA, 28. DHS has not provided SCHA with a statutory citation or written explanation to ‘support its position that the documents are non-public. 29. On information and belief, DHS may attempt to justify its designation of data responsive to SCHA’s request as “non-public” based on Minn, Stat. § 13.591, which applies to “Business data.” 30. Minn, Stat. § 13.591 does not permit DHS to withhold data requested by SCHA because the statute applies only to evaluation of data submitted by a “business as vendor” where an RFP seeks to acquire “goods and services” using price as one of the evaluation criteria, ‘The 2016 procurement process did not seek to contract with SCHA to acquire goods and services, within the meaning of the statute, and DHS specifically informed SCHA that, with respect to medi sistance, its responses to the RFP would not be evaluated based on price, 31. Even if documents withheld by DHS may be considered “non-public,” the MGDPA permits this Court to order production of documents pursuant to Minn, Stat. § 13.03, subd. 6. 96269.2 6s2.0v-t5-5309 Fed in Second Judicial Disc Court ‘1812015 10:21:95 AMM Ramsay County MN COUNTI VIOLATION OF MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT 32, The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (*MGDPA”), Minnesota Statutes § 13.01, et seq., establishes DHS’s duties with respect to government data, and provides in part that “[a]ll government data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute . . . as nonpublic or protected nonpublic ....” Minn, Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1 33. The MGDPA provides further that “[i]f the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.” Minn, Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1 34. On August 17, 2015, SCHA provided DHS with proposed confidenti: augreement that identified relevant specific data SCHA requested forthe mediation proceeding, 35. On August 29, 2015, SCHA made a written request under the MGDPA for data relating to the procurement process, including evaluative data, to prepare for the mediation hearing, 36. On September 2, 2015, DHS provided a very limited set of documents that were not directly responsive to SCHA’s MGDPA request. DHS’s attorneys indicated that DHS would agree to produce “copies of the written reports required by Minn. Stat. § 256B.69, subd. 3a(h),” but DHS has not done so, 499269.2 7e2ovs.6s89 Filo in Second Judicial Distrit Court 91812015 102135 AN Ramsey Couniy, MN 37. DHS has not provided documents responsive to SCHA’s request for “data showing the criteria used by DHS to score or evaluate responses to the 2016 RFP” or “data relating to DHIS* consideration of ‘program alignment’ as a basis for evaluating responses fo the 2016 RFP. 38. DHS has not provided SCHA with any citation to the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which its determination ig these documents is based. 39. DH's actions are contrary to, Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(), because DHS did itation to the statutory provision on which its decision, not provide provide SCHA with specific to withhold data is based, 40. DHS's actions are contrary to Minn, Stat. § 13.03 because DHS has indicated it will not produce data showing the eriteria used by DHS to score or evaluate responses to the 2016 RFP, including but not limited to the price-bid score sheet reflecting DHS? evaluation or scoring of responses to the 2016 RFP. 41. DIIS's actions are contrary to Minn. Stat. § 13.03 because DHS has indicated it will not produce data relating to DHS’s consideration of “program alignment” as a basis for evaluating responses to the 2016 RFP. COUNT I VIOLATION OF MINN. STAT § 256B.692 42. Pursuant to Minn, Stat. § 256B.692, the Member Counties entered a joint-powers agreement to create SCHA for purposes of providing health care to individuals eligible for medical assistance, 499092 8e2.0v5 5380 File in Second Juda District Court 19182015 10:21:35 AM Ramsey County, MN 43. Minn, Stat. § 256B.692, subd. 4 requires the Commissioner of Human Services to “pay counties that are purchasing or providing health care under this section a per capita payment for all enrolled recipients.” 44. DHS has issued public announcements—and informed SCHA directly— that DHS will not make payments required by Minn. Stat. § 256B.692, subd. 4 starting January 1, 2016. 45. An actual controversy exists between SCHA and DHS regarding the rights of SCHA, acting as a “group of counties,” to provide health care services and to receive payments under section Minn. Stat. § 256B.692, 46. Pursuant to Minn, Stat, § 555.01, SCHA is entitled to a declaratory judgment that DH's proposed procurement decision violates SCHA’s rights under Minn, Stat, § 2568692. RELIEF REQUESTED, Wherefore, SCHA requests the following relief: 1, An emergency confidentiality Order compelling DHS to produce documents and information responsive to SCHA’s request for data under the MGDPA, including DHS"s price- bid scoreshect, all information used by DHS to evaluate SCHA’s response to the RFP, all | documents showing DHS’s consideration of “program alignment” as the basis for reviewing REP | responses, and all documents provided to DHS by SCHA’s eleven member counties. 2. If necessary, following the mediation proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 256B.69, | subd. 3a, further action as the Court deems just and equitable. 1962692 9Dated: September 8, 2015 e2.0v-15-5389 Fle in Second Juccial District Court ‘9812015 1021.38 AM Ramesy County, MN s/Charles N. Nauen Charles N. Nauen, #121216 David W. Asp, #344850 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 cnnauen@locklaw.com dwasp@locklaw.com Stephen J. Smith, #102799 SMITH, TOLLEFSON & RAHRICK 113 W. Main Street, PO Box 271 Owatonna, MN 55060 Tel: 507-451-6540 steve@owatonnalaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SOUTH COUNTRY HEALTH ALLIANCE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledge(s) that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees and witness fees may be awarded to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted, pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 549.211 Dated: September 8, 2015 49002 s/Charles N. Nauen Charles N. Nauen, #121216 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF