Sec. 607.

(1) A health care corporation shall submit a copy of any new or revised certificate to the commissioner along with applicable proposed rates and rate rationale. The certificates, and applicable proposed rates, shall be deemed approved and effective 30 days after filing with the commissioner, except as otherwise provided in this section. The commissioner may subsequently disapprove any certificate deemed approved.

(2) The commissioner shall exempt from prior approval certificates resulting from a collective bargaining agreement.

(3) The commissioner may disapprove, or approve with modifications, a certificate and applicable rates under 1 or more of the following circumstances:

(a) If the rate charged for the benefits provided is not equitable, not adequate, or excessive, as defined in section 609.

(b) If the certificate contains 1 or more provisions which are unjust, unfair, inequitable, misleading, deceptive, or which encourage misrepresentation of the coverage.

(c) If a certificate reduces the scope, amount, or duration of benefits so as to have the effect of reducing the comprehensiveness of existing health care benefits available to groups or to individuals. The commissioner may approve a certificate which reduces the scope, amount, or duration of health care benefits if the commissioner determines that the certificate will be offered as an alternative in addition to an existing certificate which provides comprehensive health care benefits and if the commissioner determines that approval of the alternative certificate will not adversely affect the opportunity for groups or individuals to obtain comprehensive health care benefits.

(4) The commissioner shall approve a certificate and applicable proposed rates if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) If the rate charged for the benefits provided is equitable, adequate, and not excessive, as defined in section 609.

(b) If the certificate does not contain any provision which is unjust, unfair, inequitable, misleading, deceptive, or which encourages misrepresentation of the coverage.

(5) If the commissioner disapproves a certificate and any applicable proposed rates under this section, he or she shall issue a notice of disapproval which specifies in what respects a filing fails to meet the requirements of this act. The notice shall state that the filing shall not become effective.

(6) If the commissioner approves, or approves with modifications, a certificate and any applicable proposed rates under this section, he or she shall issue a notice of approval or approval with modifications. If the notice is of approval with modifications, the notice shall specify what modifications in the filing are required for approval under this act, and the reasons for the modifications. The notice shall also state that the filing shall become effective after the modifications are made and approved by the commissioner.

(7) Upon request by a health care corporation, the commissioner may allow certificates and rates to be implemented prior to filing to allow implementation of a new certificate on the date requested.

History: 1980, Act 350, Eff. Apr. 3, 1981 Constitutionality: This act is unconstitutional in the following three particulars:(1) The act's provision for an actuary panel to resolve risk factor disputes is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority in that it lacks adequate standards (MCL 550.1205(6)).(2) The statutory restrictions on administrative services only (ASO) contracts violate equal protection of the laws insofar as they result in arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of health care corporations vis-a-vis commercial insurers (MCL 550.1104(3), 550.1211, 550.1414a, 550.1415, and 550.1607(1)).(3) The commissioner's authority to issue a cease and desist order based on probable cause against a health care corporation for noncompliance with the act establishes an improper burden of proof (MCL 550.1402(7)).The Supreme Court ruling on these three areas of this act does not affect the constitutionality of the remainder of the act. Where, as here, the unconstitutional provisions are easily severable, the remainder of the act need not be affected. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan v Governor, 422 Mich 1; 367 NW2d 1 (1985).Popular Name: Blue Cross-Blue ShieldPopular Name: Act 350