704 N.E.2d 638 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1997
Relator, Gallon Takacs Co., L.P.A., has brought this original action in mandamus to compel respondent, James Conrad, Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"), to provide copies of "applications for certification filed by certain Managed Care Organizations with the Ohio BWC and copies of each and every document filed by each such organization in support of the organization's application for certification." The matter has been fully briefed and argued on stipulations of fact and is ripe for adjudication.
The public records request comes as a result of legislation in which the Ohio General Assembly directed BWC to develop and implement a managed-care program within the Ohio Workers' Compensation system. See R.C.
"(A) The administrator of workers' compensation, with the advice and consent of the workers' compensation oversight commission, shall adopt rules under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code for the health care partnership program administered by the bureau of workers' compensation to provide medical, surgical, nursing, drug, hospital, and rehabilitation services and supplies to an employee for an injury or occupational disease that is compensable under this chapter or Chapter 4123., 4127., or 4131. of the Revised Code.
"The rules shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
"(1) Procedures for the resolution of medical disputes between an employer and an employee, an employee and a provider, or an employer and a provider, prior to an appeal under section
"(2) Prohibitions against discrimination against any category of health care providers;
"(3) Procedures for reporting injuries to employers and the bureau by providers;
"(4) Appropriate financial incentives to reduce service cost and insure proper system utilization without sacrificing the quality of service;
"(5) Adequate methods of peer review, utilization review, quality assurance, and dispute resolution to prevent, and provide sanctions for, inappropriate, excessive or not medically necessary treatment;
"(6) A timely and accurate method of collection of necessary information regarding medical and health care service and supply costs, quality, and utilization to enable the administrator to determine the effectiveness of the program;
"(7) Provisions for necessary emergency medical treatment for an injury or occupational disease provided by a health care provider who is not part of the program; *557
"(8) Discounted pricing for all in-patient and out-patient medical services, all professional services, and all pharmaceutical services;
"(9) Provisions for provider referrals, pre-admission and post-admission approvals, second surgical opinions, and other cost management techniques;
"(10) Antifraud mechanisms;
"(11) Standards and criteria for the bureau to utilize in certifying or recertifying a health care provider or a vendor for participation in the health partnership program;
"(12) Standards and criteria for the bureau to utilize in penalizing or decertifying a health care provider or a vendor from participation in the health partnership program.
"(B) The administrator shall implement the health partnership program according to the rules the administrator adopts under this section for the provision and payment of medical, surgical, nursing, drug, hospital, and rehabilitation services and supplies to an employee for an injury or occupational disease that is compensable under this chapter or Chapter 4123., 4127., or 4131. of the Revised Code."
Effective February 16, 1996, BWC promulgated rules for MCO participation in the Health Partnership Program, including rules for application for certification. See Ohio Adm. Code Chapter 4123-6. As part of the certification process, MCOs must submit certain information to BWC including, among other things, descriptions of the MCO's structure, process of credentialing providers, quality assurance standards, and treatment guidelines. Ohio Adm. Code 4123-6-032. According to the stipulations of fact, BWC has certified approximately fifty-seven MCOs.
On November 25, 1996, relator made a public records request for copies of certification applications and copies of all documents filed by each MCO in support of its application. BWC denied the request by letter dated December 12, 1996. BWC based its denial of access on a provision contained in Ohio Adm. Code 4123-6-032 (H), which provides:
"The bureau shall hold as confidential and proprietary the managed care organization's descriptions of process, methodology, policies, procedures and systems as required for the application for certification."
BWC also relied on an exception in the Public Records Act contained in R.C.
"(1) `Public record' means any record that is kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, except that `public record' does not mean any of the following:
" * * * *558
"(o) Records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law."
BWC does not dispute that the requested documents are records kept by a public office but claims that these records are excepted from the definition of a public record because under BWC's administrative rule they are "[r]ecords the release of which is prohibited by a state or federal law." R.C.
Relator contends that BWC's confidentiality provision conflicts with the Public Records Act and, in the absence of an explicit grant from the legislature prohibiting disclosure, BWC lacks the authority to exempt its records from the public records statute. The task before us, then, is to examine the relevant statutory law to determine the source and scope of BWC's authority to exempt certain certification materials from the purview of the public records statute.
It is well settled that Ohio's public records law, R.C.
At oral argument, BWC advanced the argument that allowing application materials to be made public would narrow the field of MCOs willing to participate in the program. BWC claims that some MCOs may be reluctant to participate in the Health Partnership Program if the details of their business procedures are made available to the public and their competitors. Similar arguments have been considered and rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court. InState ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland (1996),
"[I]n enumerating very narrow, specific exceptions to the public records statute, the General Assembly has already weighed and balanced the competing public policy considerations between the public's right to know how its state agencies make decisions and the potential harm, inconvenience or burden imposed on the agency by disclosure."
BWC's policy concerns alone, while understandable, are insufficient to support exclusion from application of the Public Record's Act.
BWC's primary argument against disclosure is that its administrative rule was properly promulgated in accordance with R.C. Chapter 119 and, therefore, is to be given the full force and effect of law. BWC claims that there is no conflict between the public records statute and its own administrative rule, because a properly promulgated administrative rule is state law for purposes of the exception to the public records statute contained in R.C.
BWC is correct in asserting that an administrative rule adopted pursuant to statutory authority has the force of law unless the rule is unreasonable or in clear conflict with statutes governing the same subject matter. State ex rel. DeBoe v. Indus. Comm.
(1954),
For example, in State ex rel. Lindsay v. Dwyer (1996),
Similarly, Ohio Adm. Code
"R.C.
Thus, the administrative rule governing confidentiality of public assistance programs was properly promulgated under a specific statute governing limitations on use of public assistance records.
In the same vein, R.C.
Based on the foregoing, we grant relator a writ of mandamus compelling respondents to provide access to requested records. We deny relator's request for attorney fees as we find that, until the rule was deemed invalid, BWC was required to follow its own administrative rule.
Writ granted; attorney fees denied.
PEGGY BRYANT and JOHN C. YOUNG, JJ., concur.