Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TORIGOE: So, yeah, I mean if the Commission is in unanimous consent with that, that’s okay. I <br />don’t know if you want to make any connection given that in the timing of the Adler study or not. <br /> <br />AU: Of course, with the result of the Adler study, the draft is going to go along the lines of that. Am I <br />correct? And what’s the timeframe? What are we anticipating for the Adler study? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: If you want me to wait for the Adler study’s recommendations to come in, we <br />can. And then based on the recommendations draft the rule in a fashion that would allow us to fund <br />the types of studies that the Adler recommendations make. We’re just trying to make sure that it’s <br />consistent with Procurement Code and that there’s a process. <br /> <br />AU: I think that would be appropriate to wait for the Adler study and then draft up something, if <br />everybody is in favor of that. <br /> <br />MOSES: But the -. <br /> <br />AU: Commissioner Moses. <br /> <br />MOSES: Thing is we do not know how long that’s going to take. Correct, is that correct? We don’t <br />know how long the Adler’s would be? <br /> <br />AU: Mr. Melrose, can you come and maybe if you just give us an anticipated -. The first meeting is <br />this Saturday and I believe they’re both involved in it. <br /> <br />MELROSE: Yeah, I would believe that essentially the process will move along quickly, hopefully by <br />early April you’ll get a study. I think the questions really are of moving into the next phase of a study <br />of actually implementing a study. If you wait until after that study is to begin to even consider the <br />draft rules and go through a public hearing process and that, you won’t have the rules to be able to <br />implement it until some period after April. And, you know, I think there’s a sense of, there’s perhaps a <br />sense urgency in the community to want to move this thing forward. So I think generically the <br />specifics of the study will you give some content issues. But what you need is the structural clarity in <br />the rule itself so that public health studies can be enabled and you get away from this, what was it <br />called, Adjuster, Claims Adjuster; and, you know, you set up the system that allows that to happen. <br />And so I don’t think the details of the study necessarily need to be in the rules. But if you wait to make <br />them sequential it will be a longer time before the studies are initiated. Studies themselves take a fair <br />amount of time. So it’s just -. <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: I never anticipated delineating the methodology of a study or the content of a <br />study. I was more concerned about methodology of awarding money for a study. Whether you have to <br />do a, is it an RFP, is it straight procurement, is it sole source? And those were the kinds of issues that I <br />was more concerned about, but also getting away from the idea that a Claims Adjuster makes the <br />decision on whether something gets funded or not. Cause I didn’t think that that was the appropriate <br />entity. <br /> <br />PETRICCI: Can I -? <br /> 12 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br /> <br /> <br />